let's start with news we all knew was coming, but it has now been officially confirmed. liverpool have named arne slot as their new head coach. the reds had already agreed a compensation deal worth £91; million with feyenoord, a club slot guided to the dutch title in 2023—24 and then to the dutch cup this season. slot will replacejurgen klopp, who had been in charge of the club since october 2015. here's our correspondent andy swiss. arne slot has signed a three—year contract. he'll officially start onjune one. this after they agreed a compensation deal worth more than £9 million, which gives you an idea ofjust highly they rate him. also worth noting that he has been announced as head coach of liverpool rather than a manager as part of their new look structure

under their new sporting director, so why have they gone for arne slot? he's enjoyed a lot of success in his three years at feyenoord. last year they won the dutch league title, they won the dutch league cup this year and second in the league. quite a few similarities withjuergen klopp. likejurgen klopp he was a fairly unremarkable player who's been a far more successful manager likejurgen klopp he has a reputation for playing dynamic, exciting football and for being an excellent man manager who gets the best out of his players. he certainly had the backing of klopp on the pitch at anfield urging the fans to get behind the new man. one thing is certain, arne slot has a pretty tough act to follow. former celtic manager neil lennon is back in football, after being announced as the new manager of rapid bucharest. lennon's in romania on monday to be officially presented on a two—year deal until 2026. lennon had recently been linked

to the republic of ireland job and is back coaching after a break of 18 months meanwhile, chelsea women are set to announce lyon's sonia bompastor as their new manager. she will take charge of the french side in the champions league final against barcelona on saturday, but is widely believed to have reached an agreement with chelsea, with her assistant manager camille abily also joining her in west london. scottie scheffler�*s court date has been delayed until threejune following his arrest during the us pga championship at valhalla last week. the world number one was arrested on friday last after trying to drive into valhalla golf club in heavy traffic, and his arraignment date had been set for tuesday the 21st of may. scheffler was charged with second—degree assault, third—degree criminal mischief, reckless driving and disregarding traffic signals from an officer.

all charges, which scheffler denies, still appear on the docket. dan evans�* preparations for the french open have suffered a set—back after the british number three fell at the first hurdle in the lyon open. evans lost the first set to arthur rinderknech of france 6—3 before recovering to take the second 6—4. there was little to separate the pair in the deciding set before world number 73 rinderknech eventually won it on a tie—break to move into the second round finally — it's 100 days until the start of the paralympic games in paris. 4,400 athletes from around the world are gearing up their preparations for the games which will start with an opening ceremony during which athletes will parade past some of the most famous landmarks of the french capital. president of the international paralympic committee andrew parsons says it'll feel very different to the tokyo games: i am super excited.

i think we have an incredible opportunity with spectators back to have for the first time at a long period of time the paralympic games to its full potential. meaning great sport, great venues about the people watching around the world. in terms of preparations, we're very happy where we're with the organising committee, the authorities in france and paris. and that's all the sport for now. a seven year uk public inquiry into the infected blood scandal, widely considered to be the biggest treatment disaster in nhs history, has identified a catalogue of failures by the nhs and successive governments. more than 30,000 people were infected with hiv or hepatitis c after being given contaminated blood between the early 19705 and early 1990s. 3,000 people have already died, while others are still living with the ongoing effects of infection.

many of those infected had haemophilia a — a condiction in which the body does not produce enough of the factor viii protein which is essential to the blood clotting process. previously, the only treatment was to receive a plasma transfusion from a single donor in a hospital. but that changed in 1966 with the invention of freeze—dried factor viii medicines which combined the plasma from up to 10,000 donors in any one batch. sadly, it only took one donor with a disease such as hiv or hepatitis to infect the entire batch of factor viii concentrate. routine screening of blood donations for these diseases did not take place for several decades, and many paid blood donors in the us had substance abuse problems or were prison inmates, meaning they had a much higher likelihood of carrying infectious diseases. victims and their families have spent decades looking for answers to these questions and fighting for compensation. our health editor hugh pym has more. on day one of the inquiry, perry

supported by family, gave evidence. there is a huge impact on family, because they carry you and... he didn't survive long enough to see today's report. he was infected with hiv and hepatitis c through his haemophilia treatment. his memorial service was this month. today, his wife heather and son isaac were here in his memory. it is still very raw. him not being here. it was five weeks ago to the day to day, so he so almost made it the result and have closure from what happened to him. the minute i made the first recommendation, which was compensation, and a second recommendation was apologise, i thought, "oh thank goodness, we have been heard". they had called for truth and justice for decades and today campaigners hoped to find it as a final inquiry report was published at westminster.

the findings are devastating indictment of health leaders and successive governments. the report says the scandal could largely, though not entirely, have been avoided, and that hiding the truth included not only deliberate concealment but also a lack of candour, the retelling of half—truths. and of patients, "harms already done to them compounded by a refusal to accept responsibility and accountability". how shocked were you buy what you found? how could anyone not be moved by the story, a story which begins with 30,000 people? one person is a tragedy. 30,000 is 30,000 tragedies. size shouldn't exclude the horror, it should multiply it. diana and mike's son stuart died at the age of 27 after being infected with hiv

via blood products that treated his haemophilia. today, they were at the inquiry with their daughter laura. as far as i'm concerned, this is just the beginning, not the end. if we don't get some form ofjustice, somebody being taken to task from this, then this could happen again. they played with people's lives. they are human beings, they were real people that have died. there were emotional hugs, seeing a childhood friend of stuart's, clive, who was now ahead of the haemophilia society. government, civil servants and health care professionals for many years have thought they know best. today, the community knows best and i think one of the overwhelming emotions today will be one of vindication. cathy married neal in 1999, just two years later he died. he had contracted hepatitis c after a single blood transfusion a decade earlier.

at the inquiry today cathy said, "you carry grief forever". my husband died potentially unnecessarily, and my future could have been very different, and life could have been very different. from the prime minister, there was an apology in the commons. it did not have to be this way. it should never have been this way. and on behalf of this and every government stretching back to the 1970s, i am truly sorry. the apology was noted, but today was all about the victims and those present remembering lives lost. tomorrow, they will want to hear plans for compensation. hugh pym, bbc news as the prime minister said it did not have to be this way. the uk was not the only country

affected by the factor viii scandal. the us was sending batches around the globe, infecting people who used it indiscriminately with hiv and hepatitis, among other blood—borne viruses. no two countries responded to the crisis in the same way. some governments were upfront about the disaster, launching investigations and compensating victims immediately. in germany, almost 3,000 people contracted hiv from 1979 to 1985. by 1988 german companies had already paid, an initial £30 million to german victims. and six years later another 100m was paid out, six companies that had failed to safeguard the blood supply paid around a0 % of the money. canada also held a sweeping inquiry in the 1990s, which led to compensation for all victims "without delay" and an overhaul of the country's blood system. in france, two doctors were imprisoned for their role and two health officials were found guilty and given suspended sentences. and injapan, three executives were found guilty of negligence. victims were paid compensation in 1996.

56% of which was paid by the pharma companies. what frustrates the families here, is how long this took. and many have been speaking to us throughout the day here on bbc news. one of those family membersjoins me now. chris smith was eight when his father contracted a fatal illness from contaminated blood. chris, welcome to the programme. tell me about your father. dad was, i believe, living _ tell me about your father. dad was, i believe, living is _ tell me about your father. dad was, i believe, living is best _ tell me about your father. dad was, i believe, living is best life - tell me about your father. dad was, i believe, living is best life onto - i believe, living is best life onto the late 70s. he was a severe haemophiliac but he did not let his disability stop him from doing anything, he had a haulage company, worked with electronics as well, he was mechanical and electrical, a clever guy, but then factor it came along, the promise of a life changing drug that would enable him to do stuff that he had not been

able to do beforehand, then 1985, on the back and becomes incredibly ill, and then injanuary on the seventh in 1986, he passed away. h0??? and then in january on the seventh in 1986, he passed away.— in 1986, he passed away. how old were you? — in 1986, he passed away. how old were you? i _ in 1986, he passed away. how old were you? i was _ in 1986, he passed away. how old were you? i was eight _ in 1986, he passed away. how old were you? i was eight years - in 1986, he passed away. how old were you? i was eight years old, | in 1986, he passed away. how old i were you? i was eight years old, he was 32, he — were you? i was eight years old, he was 32. he was _ were you? i was eight years old, he was 32, he was loaded _ were you? i was eight years old, he was 32, he was loaded with - were you? i was eight years old, he was 32, he was loaded with hiv - were you? i was eight years old, hej was 32, he was loaded with hiv and other diseases.— other diseases. devastated to lose any member— other diseases. devastated to lose any member of— other diseases. devastated to lose any member of your _ other diseases. devastated to lose any member of your family, - other diseases. devastated to lose any member of your family, but i any member of yourfamily, but especially so when you're eight years of age and your brother was younger, you don't get that back, so does today's report, does the competition, too much for you? it’s competition, too much for you? it's a tou~h competition, too much for you? it�*s a tough one. before compensation i must see accountability, and want to see people brought to task over this. over the next week, you would

hear some very shocking details regarding this. how can successive governments put this off and let this go on unchallenged all this time, hoping it would go away? will be hear an apology after apology, how bad it was from mps and government officials, yet in the next breath, we hear them talk about the fact we need to take into consideration the public purse as well. it consideration the public purse as well. , , ., , ., �* consideration the public purse as well. , , ., �* well. it seems remote you're saying there, well. it seems remote you're saying there. apologies — well. it seems remote you're saying there, apologies for _ well. it seems remote you're saying there, apologies for the _ well. it seems remote you're saying there, apologies for the line, - well. it seems remote you're saying there, apologies for the line, it - well. it seems remote you're saying there, apologies for the line, it is i there, apologies for the line, it is breaking up a bit, i want to persevere, it seems from what you're saying, is notjust about those in the medical profession who were negligent, people in positions of power who were negligent as well. this will reveal negligence on every single level. so this will reveal negligence on every single level-— single level. so when mike blais in hu~hes single level. so when mike blais in hughes report _ single level. so when mike blais in hughes report says _ single level. so when mike blais in hughes report says it _ single level. so when mike blais in hughes report says it is _ single level. so when mike blais in hughes report says it isjust - single level. so when mike blais in hughes report says it is just the i hughes report says it is just the beginning and not the end, where

does it go? as far as i was aware, there is no legal, criminal ability, within the panel or the review to go after these people, so are you talking about private prosecutions? i think before this office started, before the public inquiry started, we just got into court on a group litigation case against the government, but then the government gave us a public inquiry, which stalled that for five or six years, so it is a case of seeing what the government comes back and puts on the table, and then if not we will look at other avenues. i think there will be enough information in the report for a family's —— families unhappy with the states go back and see what is available. in unhappy with the states go back and see what is available.— see what is available. in terms of compensation. — see what is available. in terms of compensation, lots _ see what is available. in terms of compensation, lots of _ see what is available. in terms of compensation, lots of people - see what is available. in terms of| compensation, lots of people said they are frustrated that the compensation has been the focus, and

the affordability of the compensation, which is significant, because a government let it go on for so long, does that anger you that that is the focus at this moment in time? it that that is the focus at this moment in time?— that that is the focus at this moment in time? it does, at the weekend i _ moment in time? it does, at the weekend i read _ moment in time? it does, at the weekend i read an _ moment in time? it does, at the weekend i read an article - moment in time? it does, at the i weekend i read an article that said everyone in the uk now will not get a tax remission because of the contaminated blood disaster. we did not pick to wait 35 years plus for this to happen. the government and everyone around it decided they wanted to write to bury it and make sure it never came out. it did come out, and i don't think we should be vilified any further than what we already have. vilified any further than what we already have-— vilified any further than what we already have. vilified any further than what we alread have. , ,, ., ,, , ., already have. chris smith, thank you for cominu already have. chris smith, thank you for coming on _ already have. chris smith, thank you for coming on the _ already have. chris smith, thank you for coming on the programme - already have. chris smith, thank you i for coming on the programme tonight, our thoughts are with you and your family. our thoughts are with you and your famil . ., ~' ,, the other big scandal in britain is sewage. the biggest water companies in the uk have faced a barrage of criticism in recent months, as new data revealed that last year raw sewage was discharged

into our rivers and seas for more than 3.5 million hours, a 105% increase on the previous 12 months. your anger about that might be compounded by research out today, which suggests shareholders in some of the uk's largest water companies have withdrawn £85 billion since privatisation while failing to invest sufficiently in the infrastructure. the report from the university of greenwich claims that, adjusted for inflation, shareholder investment in the top ten water and sewage firms has decreased by £5.5 billion since 1989 their retained earnings have dropped by £6.7 billion, while dividend payments have increased to £72.8 billion. the industry regulator ofwat, however, said they "strongly refuted" the figures presented in the study. joining me now is founder of windrush against sewage pollution, ash smith. thank you for coming on the programme, these are highly

significant figures, the allegations are serious at a time when water companies —— water companies are pushing for higher bills, where does your information come from and why would off—white refuted? it’s a would off-white refuted? it's a stud not would off-white refuted? it's a study not done _ would off-white refuted? it's a study not done by _ would off-white refuted? it's a study not done by me - would off-white refuted? it's a study not done by me by - would off—white refuted? it�*s —. study not done by me by professor david hall of greenwich university very experienced in analysing data in water companies over many years. he has used the accounts that are available and it would be interesting to see how ofwat manages to push back on that, because i am 100% confident in david hall's approach and it was mirrored work done by a retired accountant in one of the big four auditing teams that on exactly the same thing, specifically for thames water. it follows multiple stories that covers what we really related to under funding and investment, what should be done to improve this sector? the

whole be done to improve this sector? tie: whole objective of privatisation was to bring money into the water industry. the ten years prior to privatisation, the industry was starved of money to make it necessary for privatisation, to make it more palatable for the public, who still wanted to resist it then. the idea is money will be brought in ljy the idea is money will be brought in by investors, then we get a reasonable return on their money. that did not happen. what followed was one of the most serious and massive scams and neglect of duty by the regulators that i think we can imagine in the water sector. the only money that is ever been spent as being bill payer money. when you hear the regulators in water companies talk about 160 billion or 190 million, now £200 billion being invested, that isjust 190 million, now £200 billion being invested, that is just money that is left over from bill payer money after the operating costs of the company, and for every pound that was so—called invested in that we,

approximately 45p was taken by the shareholders, simply for the privilege of owning these companies. it has been the most ridiculous thing that is ever been foisted on the captive bill payer. the government _ the captive bill payer. the government or _ the captive bill payer. the government or the - the captive bill payer. the government or the next government has a don lemon l. there is no question there needs to be investment and massive investment, investment and massive investment, in fact, i think the royal academy for engineering said today that they want a new upgrade in sewage infrastructure in the country. the question is how to pay for that. do you leave the companies in private hands and charge consumers even more for a field product or do you really nationalise?— for a field product or do you really nationalise? , ., , ., nationalise? there should be no care about having — nationalise? there should be no care about having to _ nationalise? there should be no care about having to pay _ nationalise? there should be no care about having to pay for— nationalise? there should be no care about having to pay for the _ nationalise? there should be no care about having to pay for the debt - about having to pay for the debt that has documented, which is quite ridiculous, wherejust that has documented, which is quite ridiculous, where just know up that has documented, which is quite ridiculous, wherejust know up in the thames region to pay for that water. the only money that is coming to the business to invest has been

bill payer money so we have no share of that, and i don't mind if i am with the pay extra money and people that can afford to pay have measures taken to that can afford to pay have measures ta ken to cover that can afford to pay have measures taken to cover them. i don't mind paying that as long as i know it will go into fixing the assets. what i am not happy with and won't do is to pay money to go to shareholders who contribute nothing and only take money out. since privatisation, in thames water is case, the shareholders never put in more money at any year than the puts out, and in most years they put nothing at all in. that is the nature of it. we will be much better with it back under public control, the fear of being spread by water companies to governments to make them leave them alone is simply because they know what a great thing they are onto and they do not want to give up this golden goose of a guaranteed public bill. because who cannot buy water was a mark who cannot buy sewage treatment? it is a captive audience

and it should be feeding and generating a great infrastructure in this country, not benefiting people's bank balances who do nothing for us. stash people's bank balances who do nothing for us.— people's bank balances who do nothing for us. people's bank balances who do nothin: for us. �* , . . ~' nothing for us. ash smith, thank you for cominu nothing for us. ash smith, thank you for coming on _ nothing for us. ash smith, thank you for coming on the _ nothing for us. ash smith, thank you for coming on the programme. - around the world and across the uk. this is bbc news.

the prosecution in donald trump hush money trial have spent the afternoon trying to rehabilitate their key witness michael cohen. they said they are resting their case. the redirect their opportunity to focus the jury's attention on the corroborated evicence he has already supplied. but it has been a bruising few days for trump's former lawyer and adviser, as the defence spent hours poking holes in his story, today getting him to admit on the stand that he had once stolen money from the trump administration. certainly, he is a flawed witness but did he lie on trump's behalf. did trump ask cohen to pay stormy daniels for her silence, and did he disguise that payment as a legal expense, to hide it

from the new york voters? the former president says no he did not. joining me now is david sklansky, professor of law at stanford law school. nice to see you, thank you for coming on. isuppose nice to see you, thank you for coming on. i suppose the question now as the prosecution rest is whether we will hear from donald trump? will he give evidence in his own defence? he trump? will he give evidence in his own defence?— own defence? he would not. his la ers own defence? he would not. his lawyers have _ own defence? he would not. his lawyers have indicated _ own defence? he would not. his lawyers have indicated that - own defence? he would not. his lawyers have indicated that they| lawyers have indicated that they would be calling barbara costello, who is not understand, a lawyer who sailed as —— served as an in—depth meet intermediary between the term computing and michael cohen, they would also cause a... they've given a sign they are willing to call their client to the stand, and it would be suicidalfor their client to the stand, and it would be suicidal for donald trump to testify in his own defence, and his lawyers know that. the attempts

this afternoon _ his lawyers know that. the attempts this afternoon by _ his lawyers know that. the attempts this afternoon by the _ his lawyers know that. the attempts this afternoon by the prosecution . his lawyers know that. the attempts this afternoon by the prosecution to | this afternoon by the prosecution to patch up any doubts the jury might have about michael cohen and the evidence is given, how difficult was that after three days of michael cohen answering questions from the defence? �* , ., cohen answering questions from the defence? �* , . , , ., defence? he's a witness with a chequered _ defence? he's a witness with a chequered past. _ defence? he's a witness with a chequered past. everyone - defence? he's a witness with a | chequered past. everyone knew defence? he's a witness with a - chequered past. everyone knew that, the prosecutors and defence attorneys knew that. i think that the prosecutors did a good job of firming up his testimony, highlighting the ways in which it is corroborated by other evidence in the case. ~ _, , ., the case. when it comes to next week, the case. when it comes to next week. the _ the case. when it comes to next week. the judge _ the case. when it comes to next week, the judge says _ the case. when it comes to next week, the judge says he - the case. when it comes to nextj week, the judge says he expects the case. when it comes to next - week, the judge says he expects the child to go out to the jury about tuesday, after memorial day, how important was the summing up statements from the prosecution and defence be in a case like this which is complex in respect of the charges?— is complex in respect of the char: es? . , , is complex in respect of the charaes? ., , , ~ , charges? the arguments will be key, and i think

charges? the arguments will be key, and i think the _ charges? the arguments will be key, and i think the judges _ charges? the arguments will be key, and i think the judges instructions i and i think thejudges instructions will also be critical. one reason for that is that the charges that trump is facing in this trial are felonies only if the fraudulent business records were an attempt to cover up or further another... —— crime. and the theory of the other crime. and the theory of the other crime that the fraud note —— fraudulent business records were supposed to assist or cover up has always been murky, and it will be important for the prosecution to make it clear in their closing statements what that theory is, and it would be important to see whether the judge is legal instructions to the judge is legal instructions to thejury coincided the judge is legal instructions to the jury coincided with the fury —— a theory that the prosecution will ask the jury to accept.— ask the “my to accept. professor david ask the jury to accept. professor david sklansky, _ ask the jury to accept. professor david sklansky, we _ ask the jury to accept. professor david sklansky, we will - ask the jury to accept. professor david sklansky, we will leave i ask the jury to accept. professor david sklansky, we will leave it| david sklansky, we will leave it there, we are up against a break, just to reaffirm, the prosecution

has rested and we will get thoughts from outside the court, need a topic is there for us and is watching the child. the other side of the break, the panel is coming up, and we will talk in and jordan assigned, the blood inquiry and a bit more on the developments there in manhattan. stay with us for that. we will be right back after this. hello. thanks forjoining me. it's been a warm monday and a fine end to the day for many of us with scattered, fairweather, clouds, hazy sunshine. but also one or two heavy showers and thunderstorms have been breaking out across parts of wales, also northern ireland. and these downpours may last for a while. for many of us, though, the evening and night is looking dry and generally quite clear. but later on in the night, thick cloud may bring some rain to parts of east anglia,

lincolnshire and maybe the midlands, but it'll be quite localised here. quite nippy for some of us in the north around four or five degrees. but for many major towns and cities it's closer to ten. so here's the forecast then for tuesday and overall it won't be quite as sunny, at least a lot of hazy sunshine out there and at times really quite thick cloud. also a greater chance of encountering the showers. and they will be breaking out across parts of south western england, wales, where especially here in western, northern ireland and also the highlands. but there is a possibility of running into a bit of rain almost anywhere in the uk. temperatures where the sun does come out for any lengthier period of time could get up to around 20 or 21. but for most of us, the highs will be in the upper teens and really quite gloomy along the north sea coast at times. and that rain may turn quite steady in east anglia and lincolnshire during tomorrow evening. then wednesday it's all change. a large area of low pressure will sweep out of the east southeast and this is really quite substantial rain. so rain early in the day

reaching eastern counties. then it will spread right across northern england into scotland. now to the west and to the south the rain will be more showery, meaning that there will be some sunshine. so belfast i think cardiff, plymouth, portsmouth, london should get at least a bit of bright weather. but remember showers from time to time. further north, though, the rain will be heavy. now talking about the rainfall being its being substantial. look at the accumulation over the course of the week in some areas, 30 to a0 millimetres of rain, perhaps even as much as 100 around the murray firth, which could cause some problems. so a thoroughly wet wednesday into thursday. and as you can see, most of us in for at least some rain, least of which will fall in the south. now, here's the outlook for the rest of the week and into the weekend. it does look as though things could dry out as we get towards friday and saturday so that heavy rain won't last for too long. that's it for me. bye— bye.

hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. my office charges netanyahu and gallant as co—perpetrators and as superiors in the commission of these alleged crimes. to seek arrest warrants against the democratically elected leaders of israel is a moral outrage of historic proportions. it will cast an everlasting mark of shame on the international court.

there should be no equivalence between israel and hamas. i none. joining me tonight are susan page, usa today washington bureau chief, and kim darroch, former uk ambassador to the us and eu. first, the latest headlines... iran is holding five days of mourning for president ebrahim raisi, who was killed in a helicopter crash. the wreckage was located overnight in mountainous terrain. the country's foreign minister was also killed. iranian media has reported that the head of the army has ordered an investigation into the crash. an inquiry into an infected blood scandal in britain has concluded that victims were failed repeatedly by the health service and successive governments. more than 30,000 people

were infected with hepatitis c and hiv after being given contaminated blood