tonight, we ask why the government is failing to protect society's most vulnerable. has britain got a gambling problem? formally they tell us nothing's been agreed on the brexit negations, but nick watt‘s been hearing rumblings. i've learnt intriguing details about what that the uk might be prepared to pay on the brexit divorce bill. a human catastrophe — that's the un's verdict on how we treat disabled people. is itfair? the waters are receding in houston, but the clear up is onlyjust beginning. we're with the rescue operation as more families come through the door. imagine the force required to move this thing from wherever it has come from. it's got food in it and everything. you know that water is strong but you never really know how strong it is until you've seen what it does. what did you do? you know there's only

so much, i'm a man, i can't do no more than that. this is god's hand. good evening. this country has a gambling problem. and few in the political classes appear to be taking it seriously. more than 2 million people are at risk of addiction. today it was revealed that 7,000 people, who'd voluntarily put themselves on a nationwide banned list, were allowed by one firm, called 888, to carry on. the firm, which says it is committed to being responsible, allowed one of those on the list to gamble over £1 million away. it encouraged another addict to lose his children's home and their inheritance. in fact, the company continued to invite him to gamble online even when he was in prison, serving time forfraud to feed his habit. tonight, as the company faces a fine of £8 million, we talk to him live about how the system got it so wrong. and we ask why the problem

has gone ignored, when both labour and the conservatives are so eager to talk about ethical capitalism and that need for corporate responsibility. # can't read my, can't read my, can't read my poker face.# today's fine sounds like a record one. but it's a drop in the ocean for an industry that brings in £13 billion a year. its growth and its success can be traced back to 2005, and to one policy — labour deregulated gambling, and that heralded the start of major change. adverts on television for the first time, the rise of casinos, and a massive boom in fixed betting terminals — online access which made it possible to lose money anytime, anywhere. at the time, the conservatives in opposition warned that the legislation didn't contain safeguards to protect the vulnerable. so why has nothing changed?

last month there were reports that the chancellor had rowed back on his review into fixed odds betting terminals, critics believed he had been swayed by the huge tax revenues they had brought in. today the company admitted a technical glitch allowed the 7000 customers who put themselves on the list to keep on gambling. a total of £50 million spent by them in total. the commission said its failure to recognise the problem was so significant it resulted in criminal activity. is that enough for the government to sit up and listen? we'll see. in a moment we'll speak to labour's deputy leader, tom watson. first, joining me from sheffield is david bradford, a gambling addict who stole money from his employer to feed his habit. he was one of those who put himself on the voluntary banned list. the betting firm 888 continued to pursue him.

david, it is very nice of you to join us. talk us through your experience. how much were you gambling at her lowest point? i gambled everyday, every evening. i worked away a lot so in that sort of after—work period, not only did it cover the boredom, and sucked me into gambling online, i sought to get that one big win that probably all gamblers tried to get, to collect all my financial worries. did you ever win big? never. obviously to win big is relative to how much you think‘s big. it's not very much. but from my point of view i never won big. i never lost big other but i lost and that is what the industry is all about, making us all losers

and shareholders richer. what do you think you spent on gambling through the course of your life. i could not give you a figure to be honest and i don't think it matters what the figure is. it's what it does to you, your self esteem, yourfamily, and your friends who all have a different view and you once they find out that you have been not only deluding yourself, but hiding a secret sort of problem from all these people that you are closest to. you went to prison for fraud, and when you were there you still kept receiving text messages inviting you to gamble online? yeah. i'd best correct the way you put that. obviously i didn't have a mobile phone in prison. but my own mobile phone that i had at home, my son had to attempt to stop these texts coming through,

which was a significant task for him to have to do. and did the company respond to his requests to stop? from what i understand, not immediately. it took many attempts before they actually did stop. for me, this sort of is a good example of how the industry sees its duty of care, which is something that they only pay lip service to. this measly fine today will do next to nothing in awakening some kind of customer care that goes a bit deeper than it does now. indeed, many people like me will be, and will always continue to have the problem, even if it is dormant, you know, i strongly believe in what many doctors have said, which is that this is a mental problem. which is obviously a mental health problem. and should be treated that way, not as just some people being reckless with money. so what was the impact that it

really hard on your life, can you put it into words? in a sense, in no particular order, but for me, i've never been able, from the time in prison, which was over three years ago now, i've never been able to get a job anything like the one i had and i am now working up to 70 hours a week just to stand still doing mundane job. i have no self—esteem. i have no self belief. every time i make a decision i have to double check i'm making it in the right way. to load that further, the emotional burden on my family, who feel cheated by me, well, quite rightly, that's what did happen. but i seemed not to care one bit about them and i were making decisions which in a sense will and have

ruined our lives. if you could ask for one thing to change in the way that the industry operates now, what would that be? i think one is falling short of the many things i'd like to ask them for, but i believe a strategy of care that steps in and assists, in a sense, throws a parachute to a troubled gambler, there should be more than one nhs surgery dealing with this issue, unfortunately there is only one, i think that's inlondon. there should be access to a raft of precautionary interventions by the gambling industry or gambling companies when they see a gambler operating erratically and i also do believe in software

being available, so industry and the banks could talk together so they can see someone is going beyond their means. but there doesn't seem to be any effort put into looking for these fairly simple solutions, in my mind. we're going to try to find some right now. david bradford, thank you very much, we really appreciate you sharing that. to tom watson, shadow culture secretary, this falls in your brief. when you hear david's story and you hear what he is asking for, successive governments have failed him and many others who talk about that very coherently as a mental illness, they've been taken advantage of. can i first say, i thought david was very brave to tell his story live on tv like that. but of course david is one of many hundreds of thousands of people who currently have a gambling addiction. and gambling addiction has grown by up to one third in recent years. and that's why i think we...

it has grown since 2005 and it was the labour policy of deregulation that created that massive boom. do you have remorse for that? certainly we have to acknowledge that there are negative consequences of that act, particularly where we attempted to regulate fixed odds betting terminals... you acknowledge negative consequences, can you not just say this was a terrible mistake, as tessa jowell has done? yes, although it did many good things to regulate the gambling industry. that way it went wrong was on fixed odds betting terminals. let's also recognise that regulation that it created is no longer fit for purpose. that piece of legislation was for gambling in the analogue age. and a decade later we have had an expression of new services... that was short—sighted then because there were warnings at the time, it came from the conservatives

in opposition. why did gordon brown and tony blair press ahead and ignore those warnings? the focus of that legislation, and the public discourse and probably on newsnight as well was how you regulate large casinos, which is paradoxically the most regulated parts of the gambling industry. they were talking about super casinos. what we failed to understand was the impact of these fixed odds betting terminals, which until that point were not regulated. it wasn't just that, it was adverts on tv, it was sponsorship, you can't take your kids to a game without seeing gambling advertised to the very young. what is all that about. and not running away, we need to acknowledge cross—party that the current arrangements we have regulating gambling are not fit for purpose. it is britain's hidden crisis. there are an estimated 400,000 problem gamblers in britain, that's 400,000 families destroyed, communities under pressure and i think we must act urgently to address these

concerns because i don't want to be on newsnight in years to come... tom, we have just had an election, there was one line in the manifesto and you know that gambling disproportionately affects the poor. you know this is predatory capitalism written large. what happened to the jeremy corbyn idea of the many, not a few, they left behinds? this was predicted to be a problem and was ignored two months ago. it wasn't ignored. we've been raising concerns for many years. would you roll back everything that happened in 2005? firstly you have to look at the stakes, how currently the government can only refute the machines in retail outlets. i think there was a case for looking at online stakes in the online space.

would adverts go? you've got to look at the gambling industry... but you've had ten years to look at this. you've been very concerned, you say, so is it now clear in your mind what must change? there needs to be massive reform, we have an industry that spends millions lobbying generalists uncivil servants on the message that they believe and in responsible gambling and what we have seen today is irresponsible gambling. the industry must take responsibility, but the devil is in the detail. i won't make up policy on the hoof as an opposition shadow minister on your show, but i will say we won't run away from this and we will demand that the government take this hidden crisis seriously. we will work with them. we've got a very good minister in tracy crouch, whose spoken out about regulating fixed odds betting terminals but has been muzzled by the treasury. they've got a review going on at the moment, in october will support the government if they want to make radical changes. you are putting it on their plate.

it's been a long summer, the first time we've heard from you. give us some clarification on some things. kezia dugdale has gone, scottish labour leader. i know there's a mix of reasons, but broadly the party has become a harder place for her and for people like you. she has now shifted the balance on the nec by leaving. do you think they are trying to get rid of you? happy to get rid of you? there's always someone trying to get rid of you in politics! but, no, i don't actually see any move trying to remove me. what i see after the election as the party coming together, a recognition that under the leadership ofjeremy we did far better than anyone anticipated, probably more thanjeremy himself. how does that explain kezia's resignation? i read a letter, she said it was about quality of life, the right time for her and the scottish labour party to go. you have to respect that decision. i don't think there's a subtext, that is why she didn't do

a press conference. exit strategies are the hardest things in politics. you believe what you saw. last thought, labour's position on brexit seems to have changed or gotten softer, whatever you want to call it. if tomorrow is a group cross—party mps were to call for britain to remain permanently in the customs union, post a transition period, would they have your support? that might be one outcome of the negotiations we would support but as the opposition... no, this is — if mps stood up tomorrow and say, we want the labour party, or we want britain to commit to remaining permanently in the customs union, would that be something you would say, absolutely, i will stand behind, you have my support? it seems sensible but the sensible way to do this is to negotiate, if that is negotiated outcome, fine. it might be where we push on this but i think to tie the hands of negotiators now would be... could you put a hand

up and say we are the party of soft brexit now? we are the party... sorry? could you say we understand the importance union, we will do this our way? yes. he seen the statement from keir starmer. we think the importance of being in the customs union is important because this is the way you protect jobs and the economy and it might be a permanent outcome of the negotiations but we must see how they go. tom watson, thank you. thank you for coming in. there are only so many ways you can say nothing has been agreed. the eu's brexit negotiator has now tried most of them. in today's press conference michel barnier warned no decisive progress had been made. david davis called up the need for "flexibility and imagination". we were all left to imagine what that might mean. testy exchanges and the lack of real momentum in talks so far raises the very real prospect of deadlock in the two rounds of talks left before mid october. that's when the eu 27 leaders meet to decide whether they can say sufficient progress has been made.

it's all complicated, isn't it? and this is only the beginning. although, perhaps that's the point. it shouldn't be. to our political editor in a second, with his news, but first, chris cook reports. just listening to today's press conference, you'd be forgiven for thinking the uk and the eu 27's representatives hadn't been in quite the same meeting. this week we've had long and detailed discussions across multiple areas and i think it's fair to say we've seen some concrete progress. we did not get any decisive progress on any of the principal subjects, even though, i want to say, even though, on the discussion we've had about ireland, that discussion was fruitful. so what can you take from today? well, there were a few things to note. first on the argument about what we owe, the eu 27 claims we've changed our position.

injuly, the uk recognised that it has obligations beyond the brexit date. but this week, the uk explained that those obligations will be limited to their last payment to the eu budget before departure. this matters because the agreed eu budget runs for 21 months after we leave. and it has day to day running costs predicated on our contributing. the bruegel think tank estimates those costs could be 10—15 billion euros, and that is the hole the eu needs to fill. the commission has set out its position and we have a duty to our taxpayers to interrogate it rigorously. at this round we presented our legal analysis on on—budget issues, off—budget issues and on the eib, the european investment bank.

it's fair to say that across the piece we have a different legal stance. second, michel barnier also talked about red tape. the uk wants to take back control. it wants to adopt its own standards and regulations, but it also wants to have these standards recognised automatically in the eu. that is what the uk papers ask for. this is simply impossible. so, for example, we won't be allowed to sign a deal with the eu that lets us get rid of eu rules and has our exports treated like eu products at ports. also, note how the eu is using its bureaucracy against us. they've set out a negotiating mandate for the eu 27 which has been agreed, and that makes it time consuming and difficult to offer us concessions. this mandate was fixed by us from the outset on day one by the 27 heads of state and government, meeting as they were in

the european council under the presidency of donald tusk. naturally, we also work very closely with the european parliament. mr davis, meanwhile, kept talking about our flexibility. the uk's approach is substantially more flexible and pragmatic than that of the eu. pragmatic and innovative solutions. it's about pragmatically driving the process. taken together, the impression you get from today is, we are willing to bend and the eu isn't. but look, this is a negotiation. everyone is posturing. the state of play right now is that both sides are taking different approaches on the money. and the eu is holding a hard line on regulation. but the whole point of a negotiation is that positions can change. nick watt, our political editor, is with me now and has some intriguing new details. that was a pretty

scratchy day in brussels. the uk hearing figures of 100 billion euros to pay to leave the eu and david davis says you must bejoking. i was told by quite a senior eu official a number of months ago that they would settle for a figure of around 3a billion euros. what i have learnt is that in whitehall they would be willing to look at a figure of around 30 billion euros. 0ne senior source said to me, if we talk seriously about that, then we are going to the races. how do you achieve that? you would use the transition period of two or three years after we leave the eu, use that transition period to settle the accounts. essentially what would happen is the uk would continue to pay roughly the amount it is paying, around 10 billion per year, 30 billion over three years, allowing you to do the transition and it would settle the accounts. what that would do is solve

the problem for the uk and also ensure the eu would not have a black hole in its accounts because the uk is responsible for 13% of the eu budget. two big caveats on this idea. they were put in the public domain last week by charles grant, the director of the centre for european reform. the first caveat is this is not policy in whitehall but is being looked at very seriously. the second caveat, the uk will not accept any figure on the back of a fag packet, it has to be legally credible and binding. and that would end after the transition period, would it? yes, and then you are saying, what will you do after transition period ? theresa may in that lancaster house speech said there would be an end to fast payments but the uk would continue to contribute to programmes including horizon

2020, an 80 billion euros research fund to take science products to the market. the galileo project, an eu global satellite navigation system. erasmus, the student exchange programme. and how about this, the civil nuclear watchdog, and that's a bit of a problem because it's overseen by the ec], but they would use the mechanism of an arms length relationship with the ec] to divide that up. a un committee has described the situation for disabled people in the uk as a "human catastrophe" and said it has more concerns about this country, due to funding cuts, than any other country in its ten year history. theresia degener has warned that the austerity measures are affecting half a million disabled people, each one losing between £2,000—£3,000 a year. the most acute concern she said was on limitations on independent living, but she also said britain was failing to fulfil its commitment to allow inclusive education,

and a growing number of disabled people were living in poverty. joining me now, tracy lazard ceo, inclusion london. you gave evidence to this report. is it a fair assessment of what life is like for people in britain? it's absolutely a fair assessment. the deaf and disabled people's organisations that contributed are very happy with the concluding observations because it does reflect disabled people's' experience. this is a damning verdict by the un on the uk government's failure to protect and uphold disabled people's rights. there is no other word for it. the un disability committee has produced a 17 page document full of concluding observations and recommendations. the committee could only find two examples of positive government action. the rest of it is page after page of serious concerns. and those concerns are wholeheartedly shared by disabled people. the situation where we have the chair of the committee saying that the welfare reform and social care cuts are a human catastrophe for disabled people is shocking.

but although it's shocking, it will not come as a surprise to disabled people, because it is our little experience. and yet the government, who we obviously invited on site, tonight, and they declined, says it does not reflect the evidence it gave to the un and it fails to recognise, in the government's words, progress that has been made to empower disabled people in aspects of their lives. do you see any of that progress or attempts? not at all. i was there in geneva and it was frankly embarrassing watching the government try and maintain a position of denial where they are saying that frankly, everything is fine, when there is a mountain of evidence now, and our own little experience that is saying, actually, something terribly wrong is happening. the government needs to use these concluding observations as a wake—up call and show a bit of humility.

is it about this government in a particular patch of austerity, or is it successive governments? what do you see as being at the root of it? disabled peoples' situation is a combination of historic exclusion and discrimination. but the situation since austerity kicked in means that all the achievements of the disabled people's rights movement over the last a0 years are being systematically dismantled. that's the conclusion of the un committee. and you can say that here tonight, and the un can write it, but this is of course non—binding. the government has dismissed it because it thinks it's doing the things that are creating progress. where will we be in 12 months, if the government thinks it doesn't have a problem and the un can't

force it to change, what happens? you remember social care back in the november budget. social care wasn't even mentioned in that budget. because the government was trying to pretend that everything is ok. and yet in may it's nearly toppled the government. and we believe this is the situation with disabled people. the government have consistently dismissed us. showing disdain for disabled people and the evidence that points to something badly going wrong, and they can't carry on like that. they cannot carry on denying the problem that we have. thank you for coming in. a slither of good news for those caught up in the houston flood... the us environment protection agency says it's found no major toxic materials emanating from a flooded chemical plant in texas. a powerfailure had led to explosions and the release of dark smoke from the plant.

the concern over toxins is just one knock—on from the floods which have now killed more than 35 in the state. waters are now rising in neighbouring louisiana and mississippi where more residents are in peril. gabriel gatehouse has been in downtown houston surveying the damage. the floodwaters vanished as fast as they had come. in the heart of america's fourth—largest city, they arejust beginning to contemplates the aftermath of an unprecedented storm. this sand here tells you the water was flowing right over this busy intersection here in downtown houston. if you look over the edge of this bridge, you can see just how fast the water has fallen, but also how high it still is. i was here. i watched the water come all the way up there. what does it feel like to be back?

devastating. i'm just... you know the water is strong but you never really, really know how strong it is until you see what it does, the damage it can do. i'm seeing ice machines, refrigerators that take three or four people to move, and it looks like somebody stuck out their foot and flipped it like they were a human being. what did you do? we all left. there was nothing i could do. we all left. the power was already off in this area. most of the power was off. i took the advice of my boss. there is only so much... i'm a man, i can't do more than that. this is in god's hands. imagine the force required to move this thing from where ever it has come from. it's got food in it and everything. it's not often you get a chance to walk down the middle of the

motorway. this is one of the main arteries into the city. now dried riverbed that reveals debris, expected fishing ground and strange creatures of the deep. the alligator has been around for 100 million years or $0. parts of huston are still under water but downtown, posses of volunteers have began cleaning up. this is like a once in 500 years flood. the water you can see behind us was way past our head, six feet or more than will we are now and we were not prepared for something like this. being so close to home, you are used to seeing this on the tv, now it's half

a mile down the street. maybe it is the alligator that i wondered about climate change, it politically charged topic especially in trump's america. i don't think you can attribute one weather event to climate change but i like to think of it in two ways, either it is happening or it is not and either we can do something about it and we can't. and i think if there's a chance it's happening we as the human race should do something to at least mitigate whatever it is we are contributing. that is my take on it. we can make a difference, for us to sit back and ignore it is dangerous. most people are not really thinking about climate change now. they are worrying about their homes or businesses. this is a jazz club, huston‘s greatest downtown jazz club, we have live music every saturday nights that blows people away. so, you can see, we're trying to clean up and make it better, it's going to be better when we come back. come on in, it's dark,

but come on in. you can see how high the water got. all the way a particular. they say, get the stuff of the floor, ifigured it would not come as high as the stage but it blew me away. it went way over the stage. oh, man. is your piano still working? i'm going to let it dry out. what was your reaction when you first came in here. well, you know, i sweared, but i am a grown ass man. so i had to go with the flow. an unfortunate choice of words. texan grit and stoicism have been the hallmarks of the response to the storm. tens of thousands of people have been made homeless but more are being evacuated every day, many have ended up in this conference centre having lost everything they owned. but for one young couple hurricane

army has evoke memories of the storm 12 years ago. i lost my whole immediate family in katrina. i was the only one who knew how to swim. you were how old? i was nine, i wasjust making ten years old, when the water came, there wasn't too much i could do. i had to watch them drunk you know. and going through this it really was more drama to me. so i'm just trying to get somewhere to stay, get my mind back because i still have nightmares and stuff. when the storm came, we were having these flashbacks of katrina, we weren't thinking about grabbing this or grabbing that.

all we were thinking is putting our instincts to work and getting somewhere safe. they say that this storm was worse than katrina. but that's not true. although a lot of people have lost their homes, and a few people passed from it, it's how they were treated and how we were treated now, how we got treated then. there's a big difference. in this storm they responded the perfect way that each person in the united states of anyone else should act towards their fellow person. coming together like this, no problems, everybody getting treated like family and loved by everybody, that's why everything is so calm, so collected. 12 years ago it was the handling of the aftermath that turned a terrible natural disaster into one of the darker

chapters in recent american history. so far it looks like the lessons of katrina have been learnt. but harvey has been a devastating storm and it is not over yet. gabriel gatehouse there in houston for us. one of the big hits of the summer has been nicole krauss's long awaited novel, forest dark. two narratives run in parallel, both located around the hilton hotel in tel aviv. at the centre of one, a missing father, at the centre of another, a novelist called nicole. well, the novelist nicole kraussjoins me now. i guess that every author is asked almost as a cliche how much of themselves is in their book. i know margaret attwood hates that question. she says, i write fiction, i am a novelist. but you almost seem to be inviting it here. i think i am. i think part of that comes

from the experience of everyday being a writer and understanding that when you're writing, you're constantly expanding your narrative, your experience of the world. so if i write a story about an old man, or if i set to the 19th century, i am amplifying and adding to my own narrative of my life. and then you have that experience and then you go back to life again. it isn't that narrative doesn't exist there, you see it all around you, but you see that the narrative people tell themselves are actually so fixed. we absolutely need coherence as the human mind needs it, so we construct these narratives of who we are and what has happened to us without taking into account that that is a construction. that memory is in a way a fictional tour. and yet we stick by them even when the become too narrow for us all if they are unhealthy.

so the question for me was how do you begin with that narrative and open it or break it so that one has the opportunity for transformation? but when you are writing about a novelist called nicole, are you deciding if you will like are all if she will do things that will annoy you, when you are writing about personal transformation, does it change you? you are seizing an opportunity to be free in a way that maybe you can't do in your life. so if i were to, just like if i were to make up a character, i would be free to become him or her. if i say, well, here is nicole, she looks a bit like me, doesn't she, she is a writer like me and she is from new york, then the reader says, yes, i know you, and i, this nicole and free to make all things happened to her. and the things in the book become quite surreal. so they test the reader's beliefs. so although the reader may start by saying,

this must be autobiographical, the things that happen to that nicole are so extraordinary that in the end the reader has to question that and incorporate into her sense of me something much larger. i think i understand that! one of the questions you raise which really intrigued me was this question of who art belongs to. does art remain the possession of the artist, is it subject to the artist's wishes. it is a very living question for now because terry pratchett, who i am sure you are familiar with, demanded just yesterday that a hard drive containing i think ten of his incomplete novels be flattened by a steam roller to prevent anyone trying to finish them or publish them or sort of, you know, produce them after his death. do you have a sympathy with that, or the art dying with the artist? i don't. that's a sense that seems foreign to me. it doesn't so much that i care

what happens to my art or to anyone‘s art after they die, it's just that making art in the end is like an act of generosity, first to yourself, where you open a space where you ask questions and you are able to be changed, when i think of that beautiful line of poetry that is, you must change your life and i think that is the imperative of art. you open that, as a writer, and it is a gift, innocence, to the reader. so never destroy. if picasso thought stuffy thought was terrible, is it the duty to preserve it because of who he is? i don't know, just to think it belongs to the artist any more. when it is no longer in your studio, if you are a painter, or once you publish a book you let go of it. you've given it over to readers and they will make what they want a vet. that was yours and the writing

will become hopefully theirs. nicole krauss, thank you. as you might have noticed, it's 20 years ago today since princess diana died. the 31st august, 1997, was a sunday, but in the following week, it was the only story that we, newsnight, ran. as the nation remembers those events of two decades ago, we thought we'd leave you with how we covered the shocking news of her death. goodnight. good evening, in this special programme we will be paying tribute to diana, princess of wales. remembering some of the events of an often troubled life, talking about the contribution she made through her public work, and about the extraordinary excitement her very presence aroused, not just here, but right around the world. i'm amazed that she's been brave enough to take me on! and i suppose in love? of course. whatever in love means. when i started my public life 12 years ago, i understood the media might be interested in what i did.

i realised then, their attention would inevitably focus on both our private and public lives. but i was not aware of how overwhelming that attention would become. let's go first to kirsty wark, at the cafe diana in kensington. all the people here are ones who have laid flowers at kensington palace and have chosen to stay on because they feel so strongly about the press. ten—page supplements being printed, going to press tonight for publication tomorrow. i would urge everyone in the country who believe the press had some involvement, directly or indirectly in her death, not to buy them. i will always be glad that i knew the princess, and will always think of her in very strong and positive terms. everyone who can will support her

two fine sons and help them to have the life and future she would want. she was undoubtedly one of the best ambassadors of great britain. the crowds that have flocked to buckingham palace are strangely silent. in many ways the nation has mourned for the princess's death in the way that individuals grieve for a family member. she was very special to everyone. and she was very loved by everyone too. we leave you with these pictures of the scenes tonight outside st james's palace. good evening. a day of sunshine and

showers. last of are fading away. we will be left with largely dry weather and clear skies overnight. it will be chilly. temperatures 10— 12 degrees in towns and cities. in the countryside, as low as 3—4 degrees. friday morning is the first day of september. through the afternoon we start to see cloud bubbling up. some passing showers across the eastern counties of england. some of them could be heavy, with thunder mixed in. big gaps, even in eastern england, so a decent chance of a dry. temperatures, high teens the low 20s. most of the showers breakaway in the second half of tomorrow night. a similar night in terms of temperatures, with lows in the countryside down to about 3—4 degrees. 0ver countryside down to about 3—4 degrees. over the weekend, saturday looks like this. a dry day with sunny spells around. 0n looks like this. a dry day with sunny spells around. on sunday, we

have a band of rain moving across the uk. but the latest weather. this is newsday on the bbc. i am rico hizon in singapore. 0ur this is newsday on the bbc. i am rico hizon in singapore. our top stories: the worst south asia floods in decades — 1200 people have died and more rain is forecast. in southern texas, floodwaters are expected to reach their peak on friday, nearly a week after hurricane harvey hit land. hello. i am hello. iam ben hello. i am ben bland hello. iam ben bland in hello. i am ben bland in london. also coming up on the programme: a ground—breaking new cancer treatment that uses the body's own immune system gets approval in the us. no match, but plenty of action as the english premier league transfer deadline passes. we'll take a look at some of the biggest deals.