was used metal what linkin park did was used metal and hard what linkin park did was used metal and he rd rock what linkin park did was used metal and hard rock sounds along with rap and hard rock sounds along with rap and hip—hop to create this brand called new metal. they were one of the pioneers. the most successful band to fuse those together. ever since then they have gone on to sell 60 million records around the world. they have been working ever since. for so many people they are a proper band, they grew up through their teens and early 20s. band, they grew up through their teens and early 205. and i band, they grew up through their teens and early 20s. and i think you met him, chester bennington, just a a few weeks ago, didn't you, you interviewed him? yes, they released their album one more light and he came in to do some promotion, along with his bandmate, mike. we sat down for 20 minutes. he is very honest and open. he has spoken about his past troubles. he has had drug and alcohol problems in the past. he said he was in a really good place. he was warm, articulate, funny. he isa he was warm, articulate, funny. he is a proper icon. he is into acting as well. music is his front running thing. the band's recent album they

diversify, they went a little bit more pop, they worked with uk grime artist stormsy as well. and lovely bloke. and the news is apparently from the coroner that he appears to have hanged himself. any idea why, any theory as to why. not as yet and i wouldn't want to speculate. he was very close to chris cornell, the lead singer of soundgarden, who tragically died a couple of months ago. and recently chester wrote an open letter on his website saying to chris, you have inspired me in many ways you could never have known. your talent was pure and unrivalled. your talent was pure and unrivalled. your voice wasjoy in pain, anger and forgiveness, love and heartache wrapped up into one and today would have been chris cornell's birthday. that's a summary of the news, newsday is coming up at midnight. now on bbc news, it's time for newsnight.

do you want the journey to brexit to be a slow wade, or would you rather it was a fast, clean leap into our new arrangement? it's becoming a refight of the battle between remain and leave. the transitional arrangements, how fast we exit, is a slow transition simply a ploy to stop brexit all together? the old and tired phrase, it looks like a duck, walks like a ducks, quacks like a duck — it is a duck and the soft brexiteers are in fact people who've always rejected the result. we'll debate the pros and cons of different transitional plans. is this the future of counter—terrorism ? automatic monitoring of suspects on a database watch list. we have got to be vigilant all the time and mustn't let our guard down. we must use the latest technology to take the fight to the terrorists. grenfell — there's a new deputy leader of kensington and chelsea council

and he's taking over the authority's response to the fire. we meet him. i think the mistake was that we thought that we could do this on our own. and the scale was much, much larger. if i was going to point to the biggest thing, we delayed before we started engaging on a national level and getting support. hello. the brexit talks between britain and the eu carried on again today. the sides are still stuck on the divorce bill and citizens' rights. more on that shortly. away from the negotiation with them in the eu, there is something of a negotiation going on here within the uk, or more precisely within the uk government. it's about a potential transitional arrangement, the day we leave the eu — how long does the transition need to be

and what exactly happens in it? it's becoming the central divisive question in the conservative party on how brexit should proceed. our political editor, nick watt is with me. nick, let's just start on the negotiations with the eu first, the ones today. how are they progressing? today was round two of the brexit divorce talks in brussels between david davis, as you see there, and michel barnier, the eu's chief negotiator. supporters of the brexit secretary said the talks went much better than expected on two of the key areas, progress on the rights of eu citizens and on northern ireland. the big difficulty is the money. the uk's made clear there is absolutely no way it's going to pay the £100 billion euros that has been mentioned in brussels. i spoke to a senior source who said that if the uk was able to say it reduced that figure by say around two thirds, then it may be up for paying what would still be a substantial sum of money. now, the reason why that's important is that michel barnier gave a much less upbeat assessment and he said the uk has got to clarify its position

on that payment. right. i mean that's all the immediate stuff, isn't it? let's think about the issues coming down the line. this particular one of transition? that's right. the focus in brussels is on the immediate sort of divorce arrangement but the debate in the uk has been on the immediate period after the uk leaves the eu in the spring of 2019. now, in her lancaster house speech injanuary, the prime minister talked about how there would have to be an implementation phase between leaving the eu and then fully agreeing that future trading relationship. now, since the election, a rather bullish philip hammond who of course voted remain in the general election, he's been talking about a transition period of a couple of years. that would involve a very close relationship with the core bodies and institutions of the eu. i've been looking at the debate

in cabinet on the highly charged issue of that transitional phase. music you can have a transition agreement that keeps as little disruption as possible. we are not going to be talking a couple of months, it will be a couple of years. it has to have an end date. to transition or not to transition? that is the question that's been dividing ministers. whether britain should sever its formal links with the eu at the point of departure or whether the uk should move at a slower pace has lain at the heart of recent cabinet squabbling. in the so—called soft brexit corner stands philip hammond who's called for a transitional period of a couple of years after the uk leaves the eu. over in the hard brexit corner stands liam fox who echoed the prime minister's language when he talked recently

of an implementation phase lasting a few months. allies of the chancellor say philip hammond is increasingly confident that cabinet ministers are coming round to his view as they heed his warnings about a cliff edge brexit. there is talk about how pragmatic leaves will accept what is described as norway plus, associate status within the single market, a looser relationship with the customs union, to allow the uk to negotiate free trade deals around the world and a special court to end the definitive jurisdiction of the european court ofjustice over the uk. the chancellor's camp say the blueprint represents a challenge to brussels which is saying the uk should be subject to all of the rules of the eu during a transition period. a remain supporter even talks of maintaining the status quo for a limited period. even though we have left the eu at that period,

for the time scale that it would take to negotiate a new trade agreement, so maybe a couple of years, we would still keep the same status quo to give businesses certainty and to give them time to adjust to the new economic arrangements. liam fox slightly changed tack this week when he said he wouldn't be troubled been aimplementation phase lasting two —— he wouldn't be troubled by an implementation phase lasting phase two years. one leading brexit supporter is wary of talk about a transition period. well then we are only out of the european union in some theological sense that if we are subject to rules of the single market, the regulations of the single market, we are subject to the european court ofjustice, we are paying for the privilege and can't do free trade deals with the rest of the world, we are in the european union and the old and tired phrase,

if it walks and talks and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. these soft brexiteers are in fact people who've always rejected the result of the referendum there, the tony blairs of this world who wish it hadn't happened and think that they can magic it away. i don't think the british voters will accept that. jacob rees—mogg believes under most scenarios, a transitional phase may not even be necessary. if the talks are going well, and we know in advance, some margin in advance of 2019 that there will be an agreement, then any implementation period will be very short. if on the other hand the talks are going very badly, then it will be too late to announce an implementation programme right at the end because people will need to have made plans for no agreement. on either basis, there's not much for an implementation to take care of. either it's terrible and it's too late, or it's gone well and then you've already got time to implement between the talks being concluded and the final date of our leaving. as parliament finally breaks up

for the summer recess, there are tentative signs of the cabinet coalescing around a transition period last ago few years. brexit supporters remain deeply suspicious. nick there would the debate within the conservative party about the need for a transitional period or not. let's work through the substance of that now. do we need one? i'm joined by stephen bullock, whosejob did once involve negotiating with the other member states. ukip's suzanne evans alsojoins me. stephen, can you perhaps explain why you think we do need some kind of transition? i think the two clear reasons why a transition is absolutely necessary are, i think the first reason is that there is simply no chance in the time available of fully comprehensive free trade agreement being agreed. i think we'll be or should be very

grateful if the divorce agreement and some agreement on the future relationship including possibly a set of principles and possibly a transitional arrangement, if that's what the uk wants, be agreed by the end of that time. i think there is no chance of getting the fta. the level of complexity involved also, that simply requires a much longer amount of... longer, you just said longer. that was the word. how long? what do you think it needs to be as does it have to have a final date before we go in, or do you basically think it can be indefinite? well, personally i wouldn't mind if it was indefinite. i think the european parliament's said very clearly that it would want it to be having a clear end date and they wouldn't want it to be some sort of half way house permanently. i don't think it's

in the eu's interests to want that to be permanent with the ever present threat that the uk then decides it wants to end the arrangement or start a new arrangement, then we have to go through a similar process than the one we are going through now again. suzanne evans, do you think we can get away without any transition, is that really possible? this is what we were told. going back to the eu referendum campaign, i don't recall the word transition being used once. this is a ruse that has been brought in by the people that want us to stay in. fascinating to hear stephen talking about, it's not in the eu interest to keep the transition phase going forever. of course it is, we are a major net contributor and will be subject to their laws and migration controls. we won't have any freedom at all. the fact is, the people of britain know exactly what they voted for, they voted to take back control of our money, our laws and borders. we are not going to be take back any of

those for goodness knows how long. we either leave in march 2019 or are held hostage for an indefinite period of time. why is it so binary, what is the hurry because it's quite possible we won't be ready to leave then but we will be ready to leave a year or 18 months, two years later? this is always ukip's concern about doing the article 50 route, that lays out a two—year period. if it's not possible to do it in two years, why did article 50 say it should be possible. the whole thing is utter nonsense, clearly a ruse. as for the free trade agreement that's apparently going to take a huge length of time, free trade agreements are struck around the world without 28 countries having to agree in a matter of months. the only reason we won't potentially be able to do a free trade agreement is because the european union is expressly forbidding us from starting those negotiations with other countries now. so it's a bit of a false argument.

one can't help but feel there is there something to be said, stephen, that you do just want to delay brexit or stop it all together and hope that maybe after two years something else come ace long and we never go through with it. isn't that deep down what you are really saying? well, my personal view as a remain voter are that we should scrap brexit as we have discovered that it's unbelievably harmful to the uk or going to be. there was a landmark study done by the uk in the changing eu at kings college today, it was released today, it showed very clearly that leaving without a deal would be absolutely catastrophic, particularly economically. all economic predictions are that it will be a catastrophe. the leave campaign promised it would be excellent and that there would be lots of money flowing, that we could use for lots of lovely things. that's not what's going to happen. the point is that there are a series of realities here, such as food standards, aviation, we have seen it with euroton

over medical treatment, all this needs agreement. that is very helpful but let's take the specifics and put them to suzanne. michael o'leary of ryanair said timetables are coming out in a year, they need to know whether they are allowed to fly and it's not fixed up. if you ask michael o'leary and stephen, they would say they want the transition period to go on for a long time because they don't want it. if they play hard ball and say we are not talking to you, what will happen? i don't think we will be playing hard ball on aviation rights. we'll be begging them to let them fly into their air space? the same with trade. stephen said the economic case will be disastrous if we leave. that's not true. if we have tariffs and trade under world trade organisation terms, that will bring economic benefit of £12.7 billion. what happens on aviation rights?

supposing they say we are waiting for a proper negotiation and we say no, we are leaving, what happens? there is no treaty governing... but that's not going to happen, is it? stephen is it going to happen, is it going to be said that you can't have nuclear materials and fly out of heathrow airport? i think it's actually slightly worse than the aviation market. everyone talks about the aviation market. i only found out recently that aviation safety is currently done by an eu agency which is covered by the ec], as they all are, and that the uk doesn't have its own capacity for the certification of the people who repair aeroplanes. at the moment they have 19 months to establish a regulatory framework and to recruit and train people to be able to do that certification. my point is that there are literally hundreds,

it's a ao—year complicated relationship, there are hundreds of areas that keep cropping up. every time i run into a sector expert in brussels he tells me about the difficulties that there are going to be in his area. i'd never thought of the energy market, for example, i know that energy experts thought about euroton and isotopes. foot standards came up just the other day. we are going to see more of these moments that we didn't realise... suzanne, she is shrugging in a weary way as though she's heard it all before. i'm sure she is because she believes in brexit at any cost to the economy. this idea of the cliff edge, you can talk about my hyperbole, the fact is, this shows how deeply embedded we have got into the european union. this is what we have to get out of. is it whether we have time to create border posts and understand the structure? do you accept we need even

now we need some sort of transitional period? we should be doing that right now, that is the issue, what we can do right now, this is i go back to, about article 50, this slow move progress, designed not to allow countries to leave but to keep them in. if we were to repeal the 1970s european communities act, we could be unilaterally out, ultimately it would have been to our benefit. thank you both very much. we have to leave it there. time now for a viewsnight — the part of the programme where we give space for original and provocative opinion. tonight we hearfrom naomi klein — activist and author of "no is not enough — defeating the new shock politics". i wonder if that will catch on? at the centre of the hapless response to the grenfell tower fire

is a london borough, the royal borough of kensington and chelsea. by universal acknowledgement, it failed to rise to the challenge. and as the owner of the building and inspector of building works, it's in line for other criticism, too. those who survived the fire are understandably angry at the council, and that erupted last night at a council meeting which confirmed in post a new council leader. shame on you! well, the communities secretary, sajid javid, updated the commons today on grenfell and made the point that the council won't be trusted to handle the recovery on its own. the initial response from the local authority was simply not good enough. there's not a lot of trust there, not a lot of confidence. and that's why, once kensington and chelsea council takes over the recovery operation, it will do so under the supervision of the independent grenfell recovery task force.

it is there to provide advice and support and see to it that the council does the job that is required of it. the council has now at least appointed a deputy leader, who is to take responsibility for the grenfell response. his name is kim taylor—smith, and i met him at the council headquarters this afternoon. i asked him where he thought the council had gone wrong in the response to the disaster. i think the mistake was that we thought we could do this on our own and the scale was much, much larger and i think if i was going to point to the biggest thing, we delayed before we started engaging on a national level in getting support. i was talking to somebody today and they were criticising this and saying no information was coming. we have two people in our comms department and we had 5000 people phoning up that morning. they just weren't able to deal with this scale. it seems remarkable that you didn't throw money at it? you have huge reserves

as a council, £274 million. well, we obviously do have large reserves and thank goodness we do because obviously the application of those is going to be on the solution, long—term. as far as specifically, on the first day, we booked 350 hotels, we put people into 350 hotels. money wasn't a limiting factor in terms of that, in order to deal with that. we were giving emergency payments as well. when nick paget—brown, the former leader, when he stepped down, he talked about perceived failings of the council and he apologised for perceived failings. can i ask whether you think there are perceived failings or actualfailings? i think i have to be a little bit careful. there is going to be an enquiry on this. those are going to report. certainly, from my perspective, there were a lot of things that we could have done better and a lot of things that we should have done, which we didn't do. so i think we have failed as far as our local community is concerned, yes. can i ask why you would be hesitant

to say that there were failings? because to most of us it is so obvious there were failings, there should be no hesitation in just saying, we failed. it is not that it could have been better, it was terrible. and the council let people down very badly. i don't want to sound evasive. where i feel quite strongly is that we have officers in this situation, not councillors, we have officers in this time of situation who have worked incredibly hard and from day one, and they have a shadow cast over them in terms of the overall review of where the borough concerned. so, i am going to be a little bit guarded in terms of laying criticism at us as an organisation. so, last year, the council took £55 million in social rent. and invested less than that back in social housing. is it appropriate for a council effectively to make money, to see social housing as a moneymaking operation as opposed to a money spending operation?

first of all, the numbers you have quoted, you have given a gross figure of rents, in terms of net it is actually about £11 million a year, which is still a sizeable amount of money. again, i don't want to sound evasive. on why that wasn't spent or how that was spent. certainly as far as the commitment we have given, we have committed to do 400 houses within the next five years and we have already done 100 so far. i really want to look forward in terms of what is going to happen rather than what has happened in the past. it has been easy to write this disaster up as a council that was too good at looking after wealthier residents, the majority in the area, and was not concerned really about the poor residents. do you think that is a reasonable way of looking at what happened at grenfell? no, in terms of investing to a certain sector,

if we go to grenfell, that was part of the £60 million investment, there was the new school, with 1000 local children, there was a new sports academy and refurbishment of the grenfell tower, all from local people. not gentrification. a lot of people said, maybe you can dispell a myth, the purpose of the cladding was to make it look nice for the richer residents who lived around it so they did not have to look at the old grenfell tower? is there something in that? i totally disagree. if you are going to refurbish the building, why would you not want the building to improve how would looks? the meeting last night, the grenfell action group, the leader said he was appalled by the behaviour of councillors, there was whispering and giggling, would you answer that? if that behaviour was going

on i was not aware of that from where i was sitting and i would not condone that. he said the council are managing this as a pr disaster. public relations, rather than as an actual disaster. any fairness in that? i am not sure we have done a lot of pr in order to manage the disaster and of the work, we have seemingly failed in terms of that. some people would say that after such a calamity, the appropriate thing is for people who warned about this or who wanted change beforehand are the ones to take over, not the people who were in charge beforehand? we have an election in may, we also have to keep the wheels on the bus, this is a large borough and there is a lot of things we do well so there is benefit to continuity and the skill sets of the people we have got within the new cabinet, whilst i accept what you say in terms of trust and mistrust, they are the right

people to do this. kim taylor—smith, thank you very much. it is fairly routine these days for cameras to be programmed to read car number plates. and it is a usefulfacility, too. but newsnight has learned that highly advanced computer technology is being tested here at the far more complicated task of recognising human faces. the idea is that it can help keep tabs on terrorist suspects. the technology works by comparing images of suspects on a terrorist watch list with the images of people who pass special cameras linked to the system. alerts can be triggered if they approach high—profile targets, for example, or if they associate with other suspects on the watch list. could these face recognition cameras become as common as cctv? richard watson reports. the scale of the thread is huge, three terrorist attacks this year, 35 people dead.

five attacks have been stopped in the past four months, some have told newsnight it is time for a new approach. is this the future of counterterrorism in the uk? affects surveillance camera monitors people coming out of the building. most are not on any terrorist watch list. but this person is. and his face is recognised automatically. triggering an alert. with 23,000 now on the watch list, is this the way forward? it is impossible to use conventional means against that number of people, it cannot be done. the arithmetic, it cannot be done. the technology is able to do that job right now and therefore it is the responsibility of society and politicians to decide

what is the appropriate way that might be deployed. we do need to debate to start to use these images in a more intimate and aggressive and more defined way. after the suicide bombing at the manchester arena in may, m15 let it be known that 23,000 people in the uk have had links to violent islamist extremism. 3000 are current threat and 20,000 have recent links. we know some of them are high up on those lists and getting constant attention and we also know that people might be down the list and might have featured years ago and have gone quiet and all of a sudden they become activated and carry out terrorist outrages, it is a huge challenge society as to how we deal with these potential suspects. the conditions are extremely difficult but they are proceeding as quickly as they can... andy trotter was deputy chief constable for british transport

police at the time of the london bombings in 2005 and chief constable after that. rejecting crowded spaces has been central to his 45 year police career. —— protecting. the dreadful events of the last few weeks should stick in our minds forever, they should not fade away. we have to be vigilant all the time and must not let our guard down and we must use the latest technology to take the fight to the terrorists. both the leader of the manchester attack and the leader of the london bridge rampage later when known extremists but they were assessed to be a low priority. they were on the radar but not under the microscope when they attacked. with 23,000 on the list, how do we as a society monitoring that number? there is a technique called automatic face

recognition that can help, it uses the images of faces taken from cameras deployed either overtly or covertly. the kind of automatic face recognition we are talking about relies on a machine learning and artificial intelligence, where computers teach themselves to identify people more effectively. newsnight can reveal this technique was used in live surveillance operations before and after the recent terrorist attacks in manchester and london. a small british company called digital barriers has developed an advanced face recognition system. we set up a simple scenario using actors to show how this works. this is a typical surveillance camera but this is loaded with face recognition capability so you can see it as capturing everyone coming from the store away in a crowded space. unknown on the left, this person is high risk. somebody on the list has been spotted coming from the entrance of a typical camera and on the top left—hand side of the screen, because that is registering

the match, we can see the identity of that person and that alert will go to the right place. this could be one of many thousands of such cameras in use every single day of the week looking for people against that database. the system uses an artificial intelligence technique called machine learning. we feed the computer millions of reference images where we know what the results are on the computer knows those results as well and when we feed it images it has not seen before, it can unfair what they —— it can infer what they might be and we allow the system to become ever better at the job of recognising people. the designers of the system say it can even work in bad light and we did our experiment, recognising faces through glass. we look at multiple reference points on the face of a person and in essence we create a map, biometric map, which is just code about as compared

to the same maps created as people pass the camera. it even recognised as targets from moving images taken on a smart phone. the use of video is key. it enables the system to analyse thousands of frames. it has been used in a whole range of surveillance applications. real operations? should these tactics being used to monitor known extremists? a salsa spent much of his career at the top of uk policing and says it is time for a new approach to mitigate the terror threat. he believes most of the public will accept it. he says the uk's counterterrorism tactics are out of date. current counterterrorism tactics were developed in response to irish

terrorism. from the 19705 on, terrorist networks were infiltrated, bugs and probes were placed, suspects physically tracked. this project ta kes suspects physically tracked. this project takes a lot of surveillance officers on the ground. we recreated a classic surveillance operation, or follow, to demonstrate the resources required. we spoke to a former surveillance officer who spent five yea rs surveillance officer who spent five years working for metropolitan police. essentially we have the first operative following on the same side of the pavement to the corner. that is when they disk engaged. someone from this side of the street will cross over and engage on the left—hand term and at the far end of the street will be in the far end of the street will be in the primary position for the follow. it sounds like a labour—intensive process. yes, it is. and that is without considering you may need extra vehicles and cruise on board, extra vehicles and cruise on board, extra bodies on the ground, change over shifts, potentially someone on

overwatch as well who would beat operating remote viewing equipment or on the rooftop. another former surveillance officer told me he has seen some surveillance officer told me he has seen some m15 operations that used 40 people to trail one target over 24 hours. it is a hugely labour—intensive and these people are making nothing, they may do nothing for years. all the time there may be others who need more attention. that diverts resources from other things. if we can use this technology sensibly with good oversight, goodjudiciary this technology sensibly with good oversight, good judiciary oversight because there are several liberty issues here. but overriding that is the importance of keeping our society safe. but if an alert is triggered, what action should be taken? if an alarm is wrong, what do you do? because at that stage all you do? because at that stage all you have is a positive

identification of somebody on a watchlist do they represent a threat? are they planning some form of attack? are theyjust going about their normal business? at london bridge, protective rails have been installed but face rails have been installed but face recognition could offer a broader approach. in rising order of controversy, you could use it with targeted investigations, monitoring people entering and leaving an address, for example, or use multiple cameras to protect crowded spaces like stations or the citizens could become as ubiquitous as cctv to build patterns of behaviour. we can take a database of multiple tens of thousands of people. so what are the patterns behind people's behaviour, so how many different times have people on a list that you may be interested in, visited certain locations or been in the same location at similar times to others you are interested in. what are the implications for civil

liberties? this is being used in secret. we haven't had a conversation as a society about how or where and when it should be used. what we need is to have that conversation and we need to interrogate whether we are willing for something that can be very invasive and have a real impact on innocent people's freedoms every day, whether we are willing to have that installed in our society and what we need to make sure that we are protected from it going wrong. if you protected every single crowded place, people would feel they were living under some form of surveillance society so where does the balance end? the biggest attack on our civil liberties is the murder of our children and our people in manchester and in london. yes, there'll be an intrusion, of course there will but that is a price to pay if we can protect our society against the terrorist threat. the london bombings in 2005 remain britain's worst terrorist attack. back then, newsnight revealed that the leader, mohammad sidique khan featured in surveillance before the attack. he slipped through the net.

with an ever lengthening watch list, some say the trade—off between intrusion and security must change. i'm concerned about civil liberties, as is anybody. i'm even more concerned about making sure we use the best kit we can to take the fight to the terrorist. we do not want to be having memorial services and we don't want to be thanking the blue light services for outstanding responses, we don't want to do this any more. anything we can do to fight the terrorists and serious criminals, we should use it. advanced face recognition will never replace conventional intelligence gathering. but it could help manage the watch list given the scale of the threat will society accept it? richard watson there. almost time to go. let's take a look at the papers, or some of them. the times leads on transitional arrangements, borders will remain open for two years after brexit. of every cabinet minister

for a deal, a new immigration regime will be put in place after the two year period. the daily telegraph on a similar theme, not quite the same story, it's one that says foreign criminals will be able to stay or some of them after we leave the eu. oj simpson on the cover of one of the papers, he's been given parole over in the us. and finally the forwardian, free movement may go on until 2023, —— and finally the guardian free movement may go on until 2023, ministers accept, so that's a transitional arrangement that is a little bit longer. well, that is it for tonight. before we go, what have bing crosby, paul newman and meatloaf got in common? they are one in part of the 12 women and 200 women who suffer from some form of colour blindness.

a belgian photographer's released a photo book using infrared exposure and hand painted images. this is to tell the story of a pacific island where residents suffer from total colour but blindness. historians believe the gene that causes the condition can be traced to a king who repopulated the island after a tsunami, wiped out almost the entire population in the 17005. so we leave you tonight with images from the island of the colour blind. good night. we have fairly unsettled weather on the cards. what will friday have in store? a wet start to the day, no doubt about it. was already windy across the south—west and the combination will there from the start. a dry and bright start across the north and east parts of the british isles and it will stay that way into the afternoon. the top temperature of the day, 22, 23. the frontal season

will whip across the southern half of the isles and we're left with showers and longer spells of rain across the north of england and the quarter of scotland. goes to the centre of the low all day, the threat of blustery wind and hefty showers as well. there are dry interludes in between all of that and dry across the north of scotland is well. 20 degrees in stornoway. on sunday we move the centre of low pressure to the north sea. onshore breeze and rains of the eastern side of scotland. showers abound elsewhere but, again, the odd bright interlude in between. welcome to newsday. the headlines: thank you. after nine years injail,

oj simpson is granted early release from his 33 year sentence for armed robbery. please, do not make any hand gestures to the north. will north korea acceptation invitation for the first military talks in two yea rs for the first military talks in two years with south korea? we report from the demilitarised zone between the states. also coming up on the programme — a joint us and european police operation shuts down two of the biggest illegal market place is on the dark