‘ apologies. what will pardon me. my apologies. what will this mean for the region. my apologies. sorry. choices have been severely limited because of the behaviour of north korea. don't apologise, meet. that was great. that's the news, now it's time for newsnight with evan davis. it's brexit decision time, folks. scarecrows don't talk. it's pleasant down that way too. of course, people do go both ways. are you doing that on purpose or can't you make up your mind? that is the trouble, i cannot make up my mind! we've been pondering on it for 19 months, but now a crucial cabinet committee is trying to argue out what kind
well, we've been debating and dithering for over a year, perhaps more dithering than debating, but one thing everybody agrees on now is that we can't go on delaying a choice. we have to tell the eu "this is our vision of a new relationship", and annoyingly, it has to be a realistic vision at that. so it is crunch time — and these could be among the biggest two days of theresa may's premiership, because the brexit cabinet sub—committee is thrashing out the arguments. call it soft or hard brexit, norway, or canada. how do we finesse that stark choice? we'll rehearse some of the arguments they have undoubtedly been having, but a little briefing first. here's nick watt. from wars to peacetime, it's grand corridors and gilded rooms have witnessed some of the great decisions in british history. theresa may had assumed she would stamp her mark on our history by shaping brexit within the walls of downing street. and so today, ministers on the cabinet's brexit subcommittee
gathered to discuss the nature of the uk's future relationship with the eu. progress was said to be slow today. one source close to a cabinet minister complained to me that it all had the feel of kicking decisions into the long grass. another source expressed confidence that the cabinet as a whole would reach agreement by the end of the month. but today's meeting was held as senior tories acknowledge that the cabinet is not the only source of power in shaping brexit. beyond downing street, there are two other centres of power. parliament may well have a significant say. brexiteer tories are already making their presence felt. but a combination of an evolving labour party and the house of lords could force the government's hand in other ways. and then, of course, there is the eu, which appears to be playing hardball at the moment.
until recently, it had been assumed that parliament could, at best, take potshots at the government on brexit. now pro—european mps and peers have far grander ambitions. these parliamentarians want to amend the eu withdrawal bill in the house of lords on access to the single market and on a customs relationship with the eu, in a way that would be acceptable to the labour party and pro—european tories when the bill returns to the house of commons. one source close to a cabinet minister told me there are remain ministers who want parliament to do their work for them. these pro—europeans believe they have been vindicated by a government assessment of the economic consequences of brexit. a breakdown of the uk regions shows that under a no—deal scenario, the size of the economy in the leave heartland of the north—east of england would be 16% smaller in 15 years compared
with current forecasts. in the west midlands, another leave area, the figure would be 13%. london, a remain stronghold, would be the least affected by slower growth. the government says these are provisionalfindings. and of course, the eu will have its say. the european commission is proposing sanctions to punish the uk during the transition period if it breaches eu rules. one cabinet minister told me it was a deliberately provocative negotiating ploy. the power to shape brexit may well be spreading beyond downing street. for the moment, though, the ball sits with its current inhabitants. our political editor nick watt there, and nick is with me.
you must have more intel on what inside the crucial meeting today? interesting speech this evening by the prime minister to the conservative black—and—white ball, she said ever since the british people delivered their vote in the referendum, i have had no doubt about what our new relationship with the eu must mean, control of our money, control of our borders and control of our laws. what's she doing there? she's knocking on the head the idea that she does not have an idea for brexit. i have to say i am hearing some pretty gloomy accounts, one source close to a cabinet minister said to me there was a dreary reading out of preprepared scripts. another source said the only thing they could agree on is that they disagree, but i have to say theresa may loyalists are saying they do not recognise those accounts and they are absolutely confident there will be agreement. right. what is the choreography and timing? we had one meeting today, there is another one tomorrow.
what is the process? today was on northern ireland and immigration, tomorrow is the future relationship with the eu and the trade relationship with the eu and there is to be a third meeting later this month and the idea then is that the full cabinet will look and agree with what they have come up with and that is to do two things. by the time you have eu council at the end of march, there would be agreement between the uk and eu on the implementation period. there are some difficulties on that at the moment. and then the other thing is for the uk to tell the eu what it wants for the future trade relationship so the uk can influence the council guidelines which are then due to go to the european commission. nick, thank you very much indeed. so, the key decisions are about borders and regulation. do we rebuild our own customs border with the eu? that's a border that allows us and the eu to monitor or tax our trade and perhaps have separate trade policies? how do we solve the irish problem if we do that?
on regulation, we won't be in the single market, but should we agree to align our product regulations with theirs, so that border checks are minimal? we have a panel of two commentators and two politicians, from different perspectives. jill rutter is programme director for the institute for government. dr andrew lilico is executive director of europe economics, and then i'm alsojoined by dup mp ian paisleer — his party supported brexit, and conservative mp and former attorney general dominic grieve, who supported remain. good evening to you all. we will have a less dreary discussion than what they had today on the subcommittee. ian paisley, if you were in there today, lio seconds, what would be your opening gambit on the trade relationship? frankly, i think the prime minister has spelt out tonight that this is about the british people being in control
of their own destiny. we want to make sure we have a free trade relationship going forward with the eu. given that they have as much to lose in a bad deal as we have to lose this is about getting a good deal for all of the british people and we need to stop being so negative about this, so pessimistic. i am sorry. i just want to hear. i don't want to be political, i want to hear your practical suggestion for customs union and regulatory alignment. what is your pitch, not to theresa may, what are you telling her to take to the europeans? we want to get a really good fisheries deal, that is key for us. the key thing is, trade and... at the end of the day, money makes the world go round and trade here will determine the drive and politicians like us and everyone else want to have a good trading deal and a good relationship. is canada ok for you, a canada type deal? i think it's daft to say it must be like canada or switzerland, we need a good bespoke deal for the united kingdom.
from what you've heard, how will the europeans react and does it make sense, andrew? there is sympathy at the european level for having a free trade agreement, probably one that includes some services, maybe they are not sure how much financial services they would want to include, there is some pushback about exactly what will happen on the irish border. we will come to that! i think the eu... he's talking about a canada type deal, though. they would interpret that as canada. yeah, or canada plus a few extras. it will not be just like a canada deal so politically would not want to say it is a canada deal, but it is broadly in that realm. negatives and positives of that deal? the eu has lots of trade agreements with lots of countries, there's no reason why they should not have a free trade agreement
with the uk but what it does mean is there will be there quite up panoply of things at the border. it means we can run a different trade policy and have different tariffs, we are not applying the common external tariffs at that border, which is an issue we need to work out. it would also enable us to do trade deals with other countries but that means we might commit of regulatory alignment, so for example a lot of talk in the summer about a trade deal with the us. we know some of the things they want, like letting in agriculture regulation under their terms, which are different from the eu approach to regulation. the eu would want to make sure the uk border and particularly the border in ireland does not become a back door into the single market with different standards. it does not sound like you have solved the irish problem with that. the irish problem is a party political problem in the south of ireland.
it is not in the republic of ireland's interest to have a troublesome border. but they need to enforce... if they start putting up enforcement tariffs that is a matter for them, given that most of their trade is with ourselves and the united states of america, i think they would be foolish to do that. they might see it differently. they want to have a bad relationship with us? come on. dominic grieve, where would you start the meeting like this one they had today? if the prime minister can achieve what she set out in her lancaster house and florence speeches, why should i complain about it? we would effectively have our cake and eat it. we would have complete access to the single market as is if we were still in it, there would be no tariffs because we would have succeeded in finding a magic way of dealing with it, and at the same time we would not be bound by those eu regulations which are clearly objectionable to some of my colleagues. that's not the problem.
the problem is
logically it's most unlikely we are going to get that. because the eu will not give it to us because it undermines the eu's integrity. so what would you suggest? in those circumstances, you have to do a cost benefit analysis of where the best benefit for the united kingdom lies, and the best benefit lies in our ability to trade to the maximum possible in providing goods and services, free of regulatory inhibition with our european partners because they are our closest trading partners and no other trading partners elsewhere in the world are ever likely to substitute themselves for it. so that's in the customs union basically, or a customs union, i'm sorry i get stuck on these... it would have to be a customs union if we're out of the single market, all i would say about that and here i think i disagree with ian paisley, is if we are honouring the agreement we reached in december and outlines with the eu on the terms of withdrawal i find it difficult to see how we will not be in a customs union
somebody comes up with some extraordinary technical way of avoiding the checks which would have to go with it, we will end up with a hard border. now, i know we don't want a hard border, but it's not actually completely an issue for the irish republic, it's actually an issue for the eu and the irish republic will be forced to have that border even if they don't want it. by the eu. they can't escape that. plusses and minuses of what dominic grieve outlined there, andrew? ok so a key plus is you would not have rules of origin or other kinds of things, less bureaucracy as you deal internally with trade within the european union, but you would have your ability to do trade deals externally severely impaired so that might raise the question of if you have taken back control over trade policy, which might be one of the things people thought they were voting for.
i don't think that it really addresses the irish border question because if you have, if you have different issues... different regulations... you still need to check things so it just takes away the tariff question. necessary but not sufficient? i don't think it's necessary. i think whatever would be your solution to the regulatory difference would also allow you to check the tariffs, so i don't think it solves the question or is a requirement for solving the question. the dominic grieve option, is that an option? they keep saying you can have norway or canada and nothing in between. norway is not in the customs union, it is a member of the single market, and that is why the norway swedish border has been visited by almost every parliamentary select committee. there are checks at that border, at the us and canada border and they have a free—trade agreement. none of those countries you get a refund if you go and buy something expensive in iceland, you get your vat back at the border
because it is not in the customs union. so the question is do we want to be both in the single market and the customs union and that is what we are in now. obviously still being part of the single market comes with ec] jurisdiction... and you're just advocating some... i have to say as a lawyer i'm conscious of the fact that whatever trade agreement you get into, somebody is around to arbitrate it and the obsession we have with the european court ofjustice seems to slightly miss the point although i do understand that direct effect is a particular problem. we have little time, it sounds like we are miles apart... can i offer a solution? that you have a customs union for goods and things that cross the border, physical products, and complete freedom to negotiate new trade deals? if we are outside these in the market i don't think
were going to get a customs union for services anyway so i think we talking about one for goods in the context of ireland and therefore the whole of us. these are very complex issues of detail. i'm not saying they are insoluble. but do we simple by them and then ah mau gets up right when they are difficult to fix? there are deals all over the world, this is not a major issue that should stop us doing trade. my fear is that unfortunately what you see appears to be that we have given up on britain and the british people getting on with it and making a great trade deal going forward, that's the downside. can your party survive this? i very much hope so but i do recognise that there are deep divisions. anna soubry said on this programme but she could not serve under
jacob rees—mogg and you couldn't... that is a hypothetical. parties are held together not necessarily by people agreeing on everything but by ties of loyalty and affection. clearly there can come a point in a process of party with the ties of loyalty and affection get so stressed that it snaps and that is when the party starts to fall apart. the difficulty is that we are a party which historically has been very pragmatic in its approach to problems and we have just introduced, by a revolutionary means of a referndum, a deep ideological division. and for a pragmatic party to get over that and absorb the ideological division and come together to deliver pragmatic government is clearly an immense challenge but then look at labour. they are as equally divided,
they are all over the place and they cannot answer any of the similar questions about what they want. but let's put the country first and not the party, the interests of our traders and people come and we will get over this and you have to. thank you very much indeed. viewed with western eyes, the chinese system ofjustice has not exactly lived up to the word justice, in its pursuit of one case, relating to five booksellers. it's a fascinating story this, going back a few years. they operated from a business based in hong kong, called causeway bay books which published and sold political gossip among other titles, clearly not to the liking of the authorities in mainland china. in response, the authorities have dealt with the five men harshly, appearing to cross all sorts of lines in the process. it all started when the men mysteriously disappeared from different locations in late 2015. tonight we'll focus on one of them, gui minhai, chinese born, but a swedish national, and whose daughter is with me. here's a brief chronology. on october 17th, 2015,
gui left his holiday apartment in pattaya, thailand, with a man in a striped shirt who was speaking chinese on his phone. he wasn't seen again for three months. then, in january 2016, he turned up in china, claiming on state media that he voluntarily turned himself into answer to a drunk driving incident from 2003, that had reportedly resulted in the death of a student. for the best part of two years he was held in detention in mainland china without legal assistance 01’ consular access. then, in october last year, having apparently served his sentence for a traffic offence, he was released and began living under surveillance in a police—managed flat in the eastern city of ningbo.
untiljanuary 20th this year, when he was travelling with swedish consular officials to get some medical attention in beijing. he was picked up and detained again by chinese police. the swedes say there were as many as ten officers waiting for him at the train station. well, i'm joined by gui minhai's daughter, angela gui. good evening to you. tell us what contact you have had with your father. from the very beginning, in 2015, when he first disappeared, i did not have very much contact at all for those two years he was in custody. i had a couple of written messages on skype in which he mostly told me to keep quiet because it was going to hurt his case if i didn't. i chose not to and i was not about to speak to him any more, i had a few phone calls in which he was trying to persuade me to not speak to media. and what do you know about his current condition? he was apparently seeking medical help when he was arrested this time.
yes. i was allowed to speak to him after he was nominally released in october last year. three months then. yes, when he was in ningbo and i was allowed to skype with him almost every day. i found out a lot about his health condition. he has been diagnosed with als by a neurologist in ningbo. motor neurone disease. yes, although they said that because of the lack of specialism in als in china, they suggested he travelled abroad for medical care. the most remarkable thing about this case surely has to be what looks like an abduction by the chinese from a property in thailand. yes.
we just didn't think that went on very often or am i being naive? that is very surprising in 2015. are we sure that is what happened? he came out and said that is not what happened but nobody believed his confession. there is a chinese official version of what happened in which he is supposed to have travelled on his own, for some reason leaving behind his passport and not entering the country legally in order to turn himself in for this alleged traffic accident that he is supposed to have caused back in 2003, for which we have not seen any evidence yet. but of course there are a lot of questions to be asked about that narrative. of course. can i give you the chinese statment? the embassy said, "gui minhai has broken the law in china, criminal enforcement measures have been taken, china's judicial sovereignty must be respected and the legal case, though a swedish citizen, must be dealt with in accordance with the law in china."
and that must be right, even if you are swedish, if you break the law in china the chinese are entitled to do whatever in the country. yes. i think it is great that they have promised to act in accordance with the law in china but i would like to ask them how they have acted according to the law in china, especially because they did not seize him in china, they seized him in thailand, which breaks several international laws, presumably breaks thai law. is it a dilemma, you can see making a fuss and highlighting the case can make them digging their heels? and some would say maybe it is better to do this under the radar, you must
have that dilemma ? yes, i have been feeling that for over two years now. i don't think one has to choose one way or another. i think there are different ways of doing advocacy and i think that in this case, and of course i might be wrong, because this case is unprecedented in so many ways as you mentioned, but i think that in this case it is very important to also be public about it. because of the encouragement that i had from my dad when he was in custody and he told me to not speak to the media and other governments, i thought that that must surely reflect fear and people telling you what to say. angela gui, thank you very much. youtube or facebook: publisher or platform ? it is the defining debate of our time —
those concerned about polluted public discourse want the social media giants to be seen as publishers, taking responsibility for what appears on their screens. the companies — keen not to take responsibility for everything posted and reposted on their sites — like to think of themselves not as publishers, but as a mere shelf on to which others put their publications. but there's an interesting history to this distinction — a legal position deriving from a different country and a different era, that has somehow found itself dictating the treatment of the tech giants. all that may, however, be changing, as our technology editor, david grossman, reports. dial-up modem sounds. the internet. .. it's strange to think that we don't even really know when it started but it used to fit on a single computer... would we have been nearly so excited in the mid—90s when we unboxed the consumer internet given all the bad stuff that we now know
also lurked inside? like pandora, we must all make our own balance sheet of its contents of the good and the harm. it is a complete accident that the internet looks and feels the way it does, a sort of lawless wild west where people can say and do more or less anything they want. it is certainly not what the politicians had in mind. however, a tiny clause in one law passed in the united states 20 years ago more or less props up the whole thing. internet freedom has always been controversial but now there is more pressure than ever to reform this law, with profound, perhaps even chilling consequences for all of us. i think we are at a really dangerous moment for free expression online. there are politicians responding to public concern, saying we must do something and what they do is not clear. the tech companies are realising they have to act and if they don't
act, the danger is for them that governments will start to legislate. in the early 90s, the reaction of many lawmakers to the internet was pretty much this... it's not exactly homework. it's the internet. what? turn it off! i've heard about this internet, it is a corrupting influence, i saw a programme about it. in the united states, congress passed the communications decency act in 1996 which, as its name suggests, was all about keeping this new online world clean. but the us supreme court struck down most of its restrictions. one clause, uncontroversial at the time, section 230, remained. it says no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. this is unique. no otherjurisdiction in the world
has such a sweeping immunity for online services. the us is home to some of the largest interactive computer services in the world and i don't think that's a coincidence. section 230 has played a very active role in fostering the growth of social media, search engines, consumer review sites, because there is sort of this almost laissez faire attitude towards user content because of section 230. at the time, hardly anyone understood the implications of 230. it was actually just an adaptation of a law that protected book shop owners. it was argued they could not be expected to read every book they stocked so it would be unfair to prosecute them for something written in one. but in the case of books of course, there are publishers who can be sued and they, therefore, act as gatekeepers. what the framers of 230 completely failed to appreciate is that on the internet the barriers
to publication would disappear. there would not only be no gatekeepers, there would be no gates. everything from ebay to facebook to airbnb to twitter to tripadvisor to google, they all rely on section 230. it's the ultimate backstop that protects them from prosecution. and it's the ultimate reason why, seemingly, independent sovereign countries like the uk can't pass laws on their own to rein in the tech giants. we can certainly try to do it. i mean, facebook and twitter, they have offices in london providing services related to the provision of the facebook service and the twitter service, so we can certainly put pressure on these companies, but ultimately, were they to want to continue to provide services and avoid uk regulation, there is the potential that they could simply withdraw back to the united states.
as if to demonstrate this legislative weakness, tomorrow a committee of mps will hold an evidence session in washington. this is something that's never been done before, to have a live select committee hearing in another country. but what it has meant is because the tech companies themselves are headquartered in america, it's giving us access to people who are involved in the global policy decisions these companies make, notjust the people from the uk that represent them. the committee is looking specifically at fake news. like many of the big internet problems we struggle with, it has its origins in section 230, which treats online companies as platforms, not publishers. the select committee chair says regulatory reform is long overdue. i think we need to come up with a new definition that is some way between a social media company being a pure publisher and simply being a platform, to recognise that they have a responsibility to police and manage their platform in a way
that restricts the harm that some users can cause and create. and i think it's ourjob to say, to identify what we think the social problems are that the social media companies need to act against. in the us, many politicians are in a similar place but the difference is that they can be legislatively effected. —— effective. do you acknowledge today for the record that child sex trafficking is a serious problem on backpage? what's triggered the debate there is the case of backpage, an online classified adverts site that was found by a senate investigation to have knowingly run ads for children who had been trafficked for sex. but the law apparently couldn't touch backpage because of section 230. legislation is currently going through congress to change that. i think if we don't address this issue with a targeted exception, i think that section 230 could be injeopardy down the road altogether.
what i would rather see is a targeted exception that actually prevents sex trafficking, and still preserves the enormous free—speech and innovation that section 230 promotes, and i think that is possible. i think if we don't address this issue, i would be very worried that that could cause more sweeping changes to section 230, which i think would be very dangerous. but there is a worry that once section 230 is chipped away at, it won't end there. they might start with laws to restrict sex trafficking, but the politicians would soon come back for more. there is already an appetite to restrict the right to publish what is known as fake news. people have the right to speak their mind, and no one can get into the business of censoring opinion. people can have wildly different
opinions on the same event but as long as that event is true and based on fact, that's fine. i think we have to take a stand where people are spreading harmful content that is based on lies. so the social media companies are increasingly under pressure to decide what's true and what's false, what's legal and what's illegal, and the algorithms they will use will, of necessity, be blunt, sweeping and cautious. if you think about the sheer volume of content being uploaded onto the internet on a daily basis, it is just impossible for internet providers to be able to effectively decide what is illegal and legal content, and i think we are just going to end up in a situation wherejokes, where perfectly legitimate content, even controversial content that we might find distasteful that ought to be there as part of a free and open internet, is simply removed. so the barriers to ordinary people publishing might go up again and the internet become more like tv or newspapers
with one way communication. it may be that we will see this chaotic free for all of the last couple of decades as a mere blip in human history. now, it's had brilliant reviews, has a 100% score on rotten tomatoes, and has been called the first adult superhero movie. and it's coming to a screen near you next week. the black panther. we are home. my son, it is your time. show me my respect and bow down. you get to decide what kind of king you are going to be. don't freeze. i never freeze. it is the first marvel comic film production featuring a black
superhero, and the fact that it's been well—executed at every level means it has generated far more than the usual excitement of a new action movie release. as one critic said, it's a "story about black lives, which matter and are not defined by their pain but instead by their glory". well, evan narcisse is the writer of ‘rise of black panther‘ for marvel comics and joins us from austin in texas. and film journalist nola ojomu is with me in the studio. a very good evening to you. evan, a lot of people saying this is a moment, do you agree with that? it is for sure a moment. i want to correct a little bit, technically blade featuring wesley snipes was a marvel superhero movie, a blockbuster. but black panther, this is a moment like i have never seen before
in my career. i am a pop culture critic as well as writing comics and nothing like this has ever happened, it's utterly astounding, the level of excitement going on for this movie. a lot of that is around a black movie, it's not about victims, it's bigger than that. right. it's not about trauma, it's not about economic disenfranchisement, it's not about the legacy of slavery orjim crow or any of that stuff. don't get me wrong, the black panther character concept very much has to do with colonialism and its effects, but it's shown in a way that it's not central to the conflict. rather, this is more about preservation of culture, a way of life, celebrating black excellence and achievement, and making black characters on screen for more complex in a fictional sense than we've seen maybe ever. are you excited by it?
very excited. very, very excited. try to put into words, i am not an action hero sort of person, what is it that makes this so different? moonlight won the best oscar last year, a black themed film, why is this a special moment? because it's going to be fun, it's a superhero movie. like evan was saying, it's not too serious or to do with slavery, he's cool, he kicks butt, he has all this technology, it's just fun. might i suggest you do not want the black community to judge their worth by the prestige hollywood restores them in movies, do you? because that would be a terrible metric by which you would rate a community,
the hollywood—ization of its values. it would be horrible, but this is not that, it's is a fictional country in africa but it is africa, it is africans being shown as strong and smart and clever and there isjust not enough of that in mainstream media and that's what's exciting. these guys are cool and strong, they are lit, as the hashtag says. right. black panther goes back to 1966 actually, there was a black superhero in comic form back in the 1960s, why did it take so long for this movie to come out? you know, i think there's a lot of perceptions in hollywood and beyond, people who fund movies, that a black led piece like this would not perform internationally, globally. that it would not do the kind of business that these blockbuster
movies need to do in order to justify their existence, so i think there is a lot of that. there's also a lot of, you know, the talent pool in hollywood, the decision makers who sign off on these still tend to be very white. there are not a lot of producers who have the pull to make something like cabin. the gentleman at marvel who made this happen is black. he lobbied for this project to happen. he is a relative minority in terms of numbers in hollywood. this was clearly a passion project for him. yeah. i suppose... when we don't have this conversation, when it's normalised and we see more of these kind of films, probably not quite as black themed as this, this was almost entirely black crew and cast, you would not have to be so racially segmented, but is that what you would like to see?
i feel this is the start of where things are going. again, like evan said, we had blade but then there has been such a long gap. i think this is going to do well and it will spur on and inspire so many new script and stories. and show that black characters can sell movies. yeah, they can make money and the old hollywood fears are not correct. that's nearly it for tonight. kirsty will be here tomorrow. but before we go, it's the centenary of the death of the austrian symbolist painter, gustav klimt. to mark the occasion, virtual reality artist frederick baker has teamed up with vienna's museum of applied arts to take you on an interactive journey through klimt‘s work. the exhibition opens today, so we leave you with a little taster. goodnight. hello there. some of us, the day ahead is going to bring a slightly different feel to the weather. something a little bit milder. having said that, we start off on a
very cold note towards the south—east the temperatures toward scotla nd south—east the temperatures toward scotland and northern ireland generally starting just above freezing because of that slightly milderair freezing because of that slightly milder air working its way in. with that, a frontal system, a band of cloud and initially patchy rain across parts of scotland, the north wales, and england's south—west. cutting over in the south—east after chilly start. most showers falling as rain at this stage because it will be milder. on friday, that frontal system will be pushing way to the east, leaving brighter skies behind the return to cold air. some wintry showers feeding in too, those temperatures dipping away again. for the weekend, things look often quite windy. we will see rains at time on sunday. this is newsday on the bbc. the headlines. the countdown to the winter olympics is almost over but
could a north korean military parade upstage the celebrations? as kim jong—un sends his sister to represent him at the games, japan warns that the world to be taken in by the time the offensive from north korea. also won the programme, sci—fi sunglasses. chinese police say their high—tech sunglasses help spot suspects. remember this? we catch up with the man behind the viral video that has just won tv moment of the year. live