prime minister yingluck shinawatra. she's accused of negligence over a scheme to subsidise rice which benefited voters in her party's rural heartlands. yingluck shinawatra denies the charges and has asked the court to show kindness. the politician, who was thailand's first female prime minister could face up to ten years in jail if found guilty. the white house insists relations are good between donald trump and the republican leadership after he criticised senior figures in the party. and this video is trending on bbc.com: a woman in massachusetts has come forward to claim the biggest single—ticket prize in us lottery history. waiting for her was a cheque for more than $750 million. she says she's already handed in her notice at work. that's all from me now. now on bbc news, it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk.

i'm stephen sackur. neo—nazism and race hate are alive and kicking in the united states. the violence in charlottesville was shocking notjust because a life was taken but also because of the polarising impact of president trump's responds, fault lines that almost broke the us in the civil war have not been erased. my guest is richard cohen, president of the southern poverty law center, a group devoted to civil rights activism. how fanciful is the notion of a 21st—century american civil war? richard cohen in montgomery, alabama, welcome to hardtalk.

thank you, looking forward to speaking with you. of course you join us after all of the discussion of what happened in charlottesville just a few days ago. in your opinion, what we're seeing in the united states today, all of the heated debate, the anger, the passion, the hatred, is it a blip or is it part of a much deeper trend? it's both. it's both part of a longer term trend and it's also something that has been energised at this particular moment in our country. let me explain both halves if i can. you know, in our country we've seen a backlash to our changing demographics. you know, we've documented about 100% rise in the number of hate groups since the late ‘90s and they‘ re responding to the changing demographics.

that response to our changing demographics is something that you're also seeing on your side of the atlantic, when you see the response to the increase in immigration in england and in other countries in western europe. so this phenomenon is not peculiar to the united states. what is peculiar to the united states is mr trump. during the campaign he was really playing with fire, he ran a really very xenophobic and racist campaign in my view and that xenophobia and racism has really energised the radical right in an ugly way in our country and we saw that in full display in charlottesville a week ago. so to be clear about this, you are the boss of one of the highest profile civil rights organisations in the united states today, are you saying that president donald trump is an out

and out racist? i don't know mr trump... i don't know what's in his heart. all i do know is his actions have been racist. they've been racist for quite some time. as some of your viewers may know, mr trumpjumped on the birther bandwagon, claiming perhaps president obama wasn't born in this country. that was a true racist canard. not only did hejump on it but he lied about it repeatedly, saying things like he had sent investigators to hawaii and we were going to be amazed at what they saw and what they found. none of it was true. the whole birther controversy was an effort to delegitimise the first black president of our country. it seems to me while your organisation, the southern poverty law center, spends an awful lot of time on research and claims to be an objective observer

of what is happening on the ground in the united states, the things that you are saying to me sound so deeply political and, if i may say so, partisan, and also notjust your words to me right now, but things you've written. for example you wrote recently, "the combination of trump's racist campaign and the attacks on political correctness told many people that the gloves were off and they could unfortunately vote and act with their worst instincts." you seem to be frankly saying that tens of millions of people who voted for trump in the presidential election are racist. i didn't say that and you misquoted what i said. i didn't say anything about the word vote in what you just read. let me say quite frankly, we are partisan, we are partisan against hate. we're not an organisation that intervenes in political campaigns, we don't endorse candidates,

but we do feel we have an obligation to speak out against hateful rhetoric whenever and especially when it enters into the mainstream. and so i make no apologies for some of the... for condemning the nature of mrtrump‘s campaign. it was shameful. and because he energised the right, the radical right, and because he engaged in quite frankly a shameful campaign, he really has lost his moral legitimacy in our country when it comes to condemning hate, and that's a terrific, terrific problem. so to get to the background of charlottesville specifically, do people who take to the streets in defence, for example, of these symbols of the old confederacy, they say they're simply expressing their sympathy for america's cultural and political heritage, when they take to the streets and say the statue of general robert e lee for example shouldn't come down in charlottesville, virginia,

are they in your opinion behaving in a way that is inflammatory and that incites hatred? look, public statues, statues in public places that are erected by the government are... send a message of who it is that we should be honouring. now, the statues of so—called confederate heroes in our country were raised at a time when people were doing one of two things, celebrating white supremacy or acting in defiance of federal law. what i mean by that is the statues came up in two periods in our history, from 1890 to 1920, whenjim crow was... had been re—established in the deep south, and after the supreme court's decision in 1954 calling for the desegregation

of public schools. so those statues were put up to... and frankly in the name of white supremacy. so those statues should come down, we shouldn't be honouring people who worked on behalf of slavery. so i think it's quite wrong for people to demonstrate... no one's trying to take away their heritage, no one's attacking them, we're simply saying that we shouldn't be honouring those folk. i understand your point about when these statues were put up and the motivations of many of the people who erected them and funded them, but nonetheless they have stood in the towns and cities particularly of the south, but notjust the south of the united states, for an awful long time. we've had democratic presidents from carter to clinton to obama who's chosen not to use their bully pulpit to make a point of saying

these statues must come down, so if we're talking about the atmosphere and the tension in america today, why is it so important to address this and perhaps fan those flames today? look, i don't know if one is fanning these flames. a lot of this goes back a couple of years. as your viewers may know, injune of 2015 a young man with hate in his heart went into an historic black church in charleston, south carolina, and killed nine parishioners. after that the state of south carolina decided to take down its confederate flag because they felt, gosh, it had no place in 21st—century america and was sending the wrong message, especially after the massacre at the black church. now, after that there were a number of demonstrations around the country in favour of the confederate flag and i think what we're seeing now is a continuation of that.

so suddenly issues that have long been dormant become salient and people then speak out. i think you're own splc website, say there are well over 1,000, —— i think your own splc website, say there are well over 1,000, something like 1,500 different confederate monuments across the united states, is your group saying they must all come down now this has been brought out into the open and is such a big national debating point, are you saying they all have to come down? there are 1,500 confederate symbols, whether that be a statue, whether that be a holiday, whether that be the name of a street, and i think in all of those instances are communities that support them ought to take a hard look and ask themselves, is that the message they want to send? in montgomery, alabama, there's a school called

jefferson davis high school. it was dedicated in the late 1960s when the citizenry or the leadership in montgomery was still resisting school desegregation. do i think it's wrong for that school to have been named afterjefferson davis, a person who fought and led a treasonous government to defend slavery? absolutely. do i think the community should change its name? yes i do. those in america who see these symbols and statues as fundamentally reprehensible, if this campaign goes on, do you not worry that it will play into the hands of the white supremacists, of the extreme right factions who want to portray america today as indulged in a culture war in which white people are the victims. do you not feel that that narrative may thrive if you continue with this campaign? well, first, it's notjust

the southern poverty law center's campaign, it's something that's been considered and talked about and waged by people all over the country and in response to your question, yes i do, i do worry about the reaction to the taking down of confederate statues. but i worry more about the message that those statues will send to future generations if they're not dealt with properly. but on this point, and you said, you know, frankly, earlier in this interview, "yeah, iam partisan," in a sense, "i have a side in this debate." let me quote to you the words of somebody on the other side, a man that you have condemned in very clear terms for a long time now, you've called for his dismissal from the white house, of course he has now gone from the white house, i'm talking, you know, about steve bannon and after his

departure from the white house he said this, he said, "if the democratic party and people who support it fall back on the politics of race and identity..." i'm paraphrasing slightly, but he said, "that's fine by me because we have economic nationalism and if that is the debate, we will win". yeah, mr bannon did say that and i worry about the dynamics in our country and the flames that mr bannon, through breitbart, through mr trump, has fuelled. so we're going through a period where the country's trying to come to terms with the racism of its past and trying to forge a new identity, an identity that welcomes all americans. again, these are not struggles that are... these are not struggles that exist only in the united states. you know, when i think about the vote at brexit, when i think about thomas maier, who killed jo cox, he too was a man with hate in his heart, he too represented a white supremacy and the backlash against the changing demographics

of the western world. let's get down to specifics now because we've talked a lot about the politics of the united states today, we haven't talked about in detail the nature of hate groups, and that in the end is at the core of your organisation's activism and campaigning. what actually constitutes a hate group to you? yeah, we label group says hate groups if they, they and their leaders vilify entire groups of people for immutable characteristics such as their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or the like. it's not that you're saying you don't have a right to express hate in the united states in 2017, because surely under the first amendment you do have that right?

absolutely. you have a right to express hate and we have a right to call it out in the exercise of our first amendment rights. but then when you lump together the white supremacists, the neo—nazis and other groups who appear to the outside observer, for example the center for immigration studies, to be a very conservative anti—immigration think tank, some people are left confused. you know, is there really a strand that unites the neo—nazi groups in the united states today with the center for immigration studies? i think there is. if you look at the words of the center for immigration studies and its leaders, i think you hear racism. they're not simply opposing immigration because of some view of how it will affect the united states economically.

it also appears to us that that their views are tinged with racism. let me give you an example. after the devastating earthquake in haiti, the head of the center for immigration studies, mr krikorian, said that maybe the reason haiti was having so many problems was because it wasn't colonised long enough. and mr krikorian responds by saying that the idea that we, a think—tank on k street, which is of course that street in washington where all the lobbyists sit, that we as a think—tank are comparable to a skinhead group is simply laughable. and he points out that dozens and dozens of times, his think—tank, his centre, has been invited to testify before congress. you know, if you use this very blunt instrument of lumping them in the same category... that's the problem, that sometimes the groups that, you know, spew racism, or have

racism tainting their message, the fact that they get into the mainstream makes them more dangerous, perhaps, than the skinhead group that everyone recognises as something marginal. you know, mr krikorian‘s organisation has published scores and scores of articles, reprinted scores and scores or republished scores and scores of articles, from racists. we've documented this. so again, the fact that they've testified in congress, in our view, that's the problem. they shouldn't. they are an example of hate in the mainstream. it's always easy to tell the haters if they have swastikas or are in white sheets. it's harder to recognise the haters who are in business suits. that's why we think it's so important to point it out when we see them. it is harder, and sometimes you get it wrong.

for example, dr ben carson, who currently sits in the trump administration, but was obviously a candidate for president himself back during the campaign, you put him on a list of people peddling hate, and then you had to apologise. i mean, what happened there? can you explain to me how you can make that kind of mistake, to put it bluntly? well, look, we acknowledged it was a mistake, and publicly apologised to dr carson. we did not call him a hater. we had him on a list of extremists, and that was a mistake. i think anyone who googles mr carson can see that he made some what i would say, you know, odd, peculiar and extreme statements. but we shouldn't have listed him in the way that we do. we make mistakes sometimes, and we own up to them. do you think it is dangerous, this polarisation, which you are a part of? and i understand why you feel it is so important to stand up to hate, but in a sense,

you are part of the polarisation. well, look, i don't think it's... i don't think hate and calling out hate are morally equivalent. i think that's a false equivalency, and so i think they are quite different things, so i would reject the premise of your question entirely. let's get, then, to the critique that comes your way from the other side, if you like. and that is from those young people, in particular, who look at what is happening on the streets of charlottesville and elsewhere today, and they say that the only way to confront the neo—nazis, the white supremacists, the ku klux klan, the only way is to confront them with direct action. and if they are violent, if the extremists from the right are violent, then these groups, they call themselves antifa, the anti—fascist action groupings, they say they will be violent themselves. you have ruled out that kind of response. why?

well, we think that no group with... the antifa, we think, are absolutely part of the problem. the idea that they decide themselves that they can stop another group from speaking is antithetical to the values in the first amendment in our country, and horribly counter—productive. so, you know, we have been consistent in saying that, and condemning the antifa. they‘ re completely misguided, and i think their tactics are quite dangerous. here is a quote from one, 20—year—old emily rose nauert, on the streets of charlottesville. she said, "people are starting to understand that neo—nazis don't care if you're quiet and if you're peaceful. you need violence in order to protect non—violence."

yes, well, look, you saw what happened in charlottesville. you know, just a terrible situation. and then you contrast it with what happened in boston, where thousands and thousands of people came and marched in peace against hate. i think the message that the good people of boston sent peacefully was certainly much more powerful than the message that the antifa sent in cha rlottesville, with their clubs. so, if the klansmen or the white supremacists or the neo—nazis want to march, you say we've got to let the march? absolutely, they have a right to... they have a right to their speech, and i think an effort to suppress them only plays into their hands, by allowing them to portray themselves as martyrs. before we end, i want to ask you about one different aspect of your activism and campaigning. that is your concern about the rising tide in islamophobia in the united states, and all the figures

show that it is spiking, and has done for the last few years. you have chosen to aim some of your fire at people who actually have made it their life's work to campaign against extremist islamism. i'm thinking for example of the head of the quilliam 0rganisation here in the united kingdom, maajid nawaz. he is so angry with the fact you have put him on a list of extremists that he is threatening to sue you. why did you do that? well, look, what we've said about mr nawaz is a matter of public record, and given that he has said he's going to sue us, i don't really think it's appropriate for me to comment any further at this time. alright, ayaan hirsi ali, then, another inveterate campaign against jihadis, radical islamists. you've also had her in your line of fire, as well. itjust seems to me you are choosing to pick on people who have taken risks themselves to confront

the dangers that are represented by extreme political and violent islamists. yeah, no, iunderstand the point that you're making. of course, the person who you are speaking of has described, you know, islam as a death cult. i think that's painting with a very, very broad brush, and doesn't help the cause of interfaith understanding. so you have no regrets about that? you don't think that perhaps your message on islamophobia has been somewhat confused by some of the targets you have picked on? i understand the criticism. but i think the larger issue is that we know that there's been a rise in anti—muslim fever in this country, just as there's been a rise in britain, and in other places in western europe. and it's a tremendous problem, and it's something that someone like mr trump has exacerbated, through his rhetoric during his campaign and his actions as the president.

richard cohen, i want to end, if i may, withjust one broad—brush question. i was very taken by a new yorker magazine article just a few days ago which talked about the possibility of a new american civil war. and they polled a bunch of historians and leading analysts, and asked them to stay in percentage terms what they thought the possibility was. and the consensus was a 35% possibility there could be a new american civil war. where would you put it? i would put it at zero. i think those estimates are ridiculous. you know, america is a strong country, and we will get through this. sure, we'll continue to have controversy around race. that's going to happen in our country, that's going to happen in england. but our country is not going to break out into a civil war, i'd bet my life on it. alright, well, we have to leave it there, but richard cohen,

i thank you very much forjoining me from montgomery, alabama. thank you. hello there. there's not much movement of our weather at the moment so it's a familiar theme as we head to the end of the week. the best of the weather towards the south—east of the uk, where temperatures should be a bit higher than they were on thursday. head towards the north—west and here it's much more unsettled, showers and maybe some longer spells of rain. as a result it will be a bit cooler too. the wetter weather is in the north—west because we're closer to this area of low pressure.

now, eventually that will push across scotland out into the north sea and take the wetter weather away this weekend. but for the moment we've got more rain to come both overnight and into friday across northern ireland and into western scotland. some showers further east across scotland, one or two for northern england and wales as the cloud increases, sunnier skies further south and east. so a lot of cloud to come across northern ireland, already we've had some flooding earlier on in the week, this rain isn't going to help. a lot of cloud across scotland and if we get some sunshine in the north—east of scotland that could trigger one or two heavy showers in the afternoon. by then a little more cloud coming into northern england and perhaps some showers here, one or two in wales. most of wales will be dry, we will see the cloud increasing here and in the south—west. the sunnier skies through the east midlands, east anglia and the south—east were temps are a bit higher, probably around about the mid—twenties. it's not going to be as warm as that in headingley. it will feel quite chilly actually as the cloud increases through the day and there's just

the small chance of one or two like light showers. most of the wet weather continues to be further north close to that area of low pressure, and that will push the wetter weather generally clear from northern ireland across scotland. further south, some drier conditions, one or two showers perhaps and temperatures of 1a to 16 degrees. into the start of the weekend then and we've got rain mainly in scotland but it's going to be pushing out to the north sea, it's going to take a while for things to improve across eastern scotland but a much better day in western scotland and northern ireland, generally dry with some sunshine. some sunshine for england and wales, maybe one or two more showers drifting further south and you can see the difference in temperatures, again peaking in the south—east around about the mid—twenties. a lot of those showers will have moved away as we head into the second half of the weekend. so if you do catch a shower you're going to be quite unlucky, a lot of dry weather around and some sunshine at times and temperatures near average for the time of year. as we head into monday, a bank holiday for many, we're back into the north—west south—east split with weather fronts driving into the north—west together

with some stronger winds. so rain for scotland and northern ireland but the wind will move things on into northern ireland and wales later. to the south—east, it's going to be sunnier here and also warmer. i'm sharanjit leyl in singapore. the headlines: a verdict due for yingluck shinawatra. thailand's former premier could face jail if found guilty of illegal subsidies. and the white house says all‘s fine between donald trump and the republican leadership after he criticised senior figures in his own party. and i'm alpa patel in london. also coming up in the programme: has north korea just given us a glimpse of its next planned nuclear weapon? a wall chart next to kim jong—un reveals blueprints for a new rocket. the biggest single win in us lottery history, as mavis from massachusetts scoops $750 million on the powerball.