police say that if sir edward heath was alive, he would have been questioned. but friends of the former prime minister say that claims of sexual abuse against him are groundless. so how should police investigate these allegations of historic abuse? we debate with a former tory mp himself accused and cleared. police in las vegas are no closer to understanding the gunmen‘s motivation, newsnight heads to his hometown of mesquite. the right to bear arms is carved into the american soul. the battle over guns is where you draw the lines. it is which weapons are permitted, and which are not. i have a shot gun, a 22 pistol, a 38 pistol and a 22 rifle. four guns. why do you need four guns? you live next to a golf course! it is part of your dna to have a gun! what is the female equivalent of manspreading, and should we be doing more of it? we speak to amy cuddy. good evening.

tonight, the ministry of defence is having to defend proposals that go to the heart of how our country can defend itself. newsnight has learned the royal navy would lose its ability to assault enemy held beaches and plans currently being considered. the specialist landing ships, hms albion and bulwark, would be taken out of service, a plan which has caused huge alarm among senior royal marine officers who believe it would deprive the core of its core mission. mark urban has the story. emily, we are in a situation, not unprecedented, where there are too many things in the programme and aspirations to be paid for but there is also a depreciation in the value of the sterling which affects some of the bigger projects and there needs to be a review. in 30 years of reporting defence in this country, i've never seen a situation like the one we are now in. we cannot call it a review,

and whitehall isn't because apparently the defence secretary had won just two years ago and does not like the optics of calling it a review. we are not supposed to call what is now being considered cuts "cuts", but adjustments. according to the chief of defence staff but cuts are being considered. a lot of this is the usual salami slicing kind of stuff, the army, the times newspaper reported yesterday, they could lose a quarter of their helicopters and the navy, i heard from that paper, they will lose their helicopters as well, slowing down f35 deliveries, the normal kinds of stuff but every now and then, you get a great big thump, where an entire national skill set, a capability, complete with the equipment and the people who use it, will be taken out. that is being seriously considered according to the people i've spoken to in whitehall.

fighting over the beach, from normandy, the largest amphibious operation in history, to the go—it—alone national effort of the falklands, to the multinational operation against iraq in 2003. the technology may have changed but the royal navy has always considered it to be a core capability. but no longer because, under plans to balance the books, britain would lose the specialist ships needed to do it. there are lots of times around the world where actually, if you want to put military forces on the ground, the way to do it is from the sea. you can't fly them in because there won't be airfields ready, no one will let you land, you'll get no overflying rights. and if we want a stable and secure world, what the navy is very good at doing is ensuring that stability. it is only 20 years since the uk decided to boost its amphibious

assault fleet, acquiring the helicopter carrier ocean, currently providing disaster relief in the caribbean, and two big specialist landing ships, albion and bulwark. the retirement of ocean has already been announced and now the disposal of the other two is on the cards. we understand that as part of the economy effort currently going on at the mod, the first sea lord, or head of the navy, has suggested retiring albion and bulwark, reducing the strength of the royal marines by 1000, and taking two mine—hunting vessels out service as well. this is about money. defence reviews always are of course. but it's also about people. the royal navy has a serious shortage of sailors and, as it tries to crew up its two new aircraft carriers, the queen elizabeth and princess of wales, axing the amphibious fleet could yield up hundreds for that purpose. the cuts fall particularly heavily for the royal marines

for whom landing ashore against opposition is core business. it would really undermine the corps utility but the reality is, if we want to be a global britain where we meet alliances and commitments that we have, we need a royal marines with amphibious capability so we can deploy overseas. bringing the two new carriers into service is causing particular strains for the fleet but with so much invested in them, other capabilities will have to give. many defence insiders blame the huge costs of the carrier programme for distorting the shape of the royal navy as a whole. 0ne senior royal marine told me it was the worst procurement decision of the past 50 years and now the royal marines are going to be sacrificed for it. all three of the armed forces will suffer what one service chief

this week called ‘adjustments‘ under the current capability review. that's likely to mean a slowdown in ordering new raf f35 fighters and dozens of helicopters lost in the army. but it's the navy that's under particular pressure and the responsibility of its head, the first sea lord, to look for possible cuts. the first sea lord is put in a very difficult position. basically there is insufficient money for the defence force that has been planned. and the first sea lord is told, this is how much money you've got, what are your priorities? and because there is not sufficient funding there, because effectively the defence secretary said, we will find all the money we need by efficiency savings, and that can't be done, it means there have to be cuts. 3 commando brigade last mounted an amphibious assault 1a years ago against the iraqis. tonight many in whitehall are asking, if the specialist ships go, then what kind of future will the royal marines themselves have? well, mark urban with that exclusive story. we approached the ministry

of defence for comment but they've said no decisions have yet been made and at this stage, any discussion of the options is speculation. chris parry, who helped to author a previous review of defence and commanded the uk's amphibious task group, it's great for you to come in. this is a proposal at the moment, what do you understand from this? what is your understanding of the effect it would have? i think it would be justified by saying the aircraft carriers will take over part of the amphibious or literal capabilities these amphibious ships previously gave, i think it is easy to be sucked into the idea of the beach. i think the ministry of defence willjustify it in that beaches are not part of the equation any more but these ships have a massive capability beyond amphibious. the example of a disaster hit island in the caribbean, that would be immensely useful

for taking things in volume and mass across the beach to help people. they have immense command control facilities with communications and things like that. they are an integral part of an amphibious force and what we are effectively saying is we will centre our amphibious force in future on aviation from the carriers and the kinds of warfare we will do will involve lighter assault rather than heavy assault from the sea. what about these involved in the caribbean, are they involved in the way that you talk about? it sounded like they haven't been used for 14 years?

they haven't, they would have been ideal because of the current cuts they are not ready to be deployed. i'm afraid to say that a lot of the navy today is going through the motions. their real role is to defend the uk, to promote its interests and deter threats, resist conversion. the more we reduce the war fighting capabilities of essentially a service designed to fight the queen's enemies, i'm afraid to say that we will be able to do less and less around the world in promoting and protecting the uk's interests. what state do you think the royal marines are in now? i think they are being downscaled in the same way the royal navy is. until you reduce the number of tasks the royal navy is required to do at the same time as preparing for a possible war at the top end, you will see gaps increasingly appearing not only in the royal marines but across a whole range of royal navy activities. the fact of life is that strategy depends on a triad of what the government or people want to do, and what resources are available and what is militarily practical. what is driving the strategy

at the moment is as simple as the money available. the tasks that need doing and military practicalities is going by the wayside. as mark laid out, there are fiscal constraints and actually most people think of modern warfare is being fought. the government would like you to think that you have to go through the motions and do cyber, all of this soft stuff but the fact of life is our potential opponents are bringing up their navies with hard edge fighting capabilities but the americans are saying you can do this other stuff around the edges but at the moment we need hard edge fighting capabilities. we need a navy that is able to go in harms way and go toe to toe with any potential opponents. we do not have that navy today. worthy aircraft carriers a mistake? no, they will fulfil a row and i see them as floating chunks of sovereignty. they will be great if they come in, it would be great if they take over the amphibious effect

that we previously had, but it is a hell of a gamble. thank you very much indeed. ten years ago today, gordon brown announced he would not go to the country to call a general election. it was five days after george osborne announced a conservative government would raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million. prime minister brown's announcement looked like fear. it wasn't untiljune this year we saw the consequences of an election that hasn't been bottled. in her conference speech yesterday before the coughing began, theresa may took responsibility for that campaign and said sorry to her party. today, a lot of talk about her party rallying around her, but how safe is herjob?

nick watt, you remember that ten years ago. i was one of the journalists briefed on that announcement, it was leaked and the rest is history. but he did have 2.5 more years in downing street after that and this downing street says that it isn't over yet for this prime minister and we seem to have an operation tonight. amber rudd has an article in the daily telegraph tomorrow saying that bluntly, she should stay and it seems like theresa may's allies are flushing out rebels in the times newspaper. you do not do an operation like that unless you are worried and opponents say that their numbers are growing that slowly. they say currently they have four former cabinet ministers willing to put their name to a letter or statement saying that the prime ministers should go. they think those numbers will go up to seven, speaking to one person, they said the numbers are taking up but it will be a slow and gradual process. what is your sense here? the pr operation is going up in the papers...

where are we at? i was speaking to a minister off the record today, ed vaizey, the former minister, put his head above the parapet and this minister said to me is that bit by bit, the pressure is growing and the water is slowly rising, and eventually the dam will burst. what seems to be happening, there was a consensus the prime minister should stay until 2019 for brexit. there is a move that it should be a little earlier, but the numbers are not there yet. so the prime minister is here for the moment. nick, thank you. today wiltshire police confirmed that the former prime minister sir edward heath would have been interviewed under caution amid claims of rape and abuse when they came to light if he was alive. they include the alleged rape of an 11—year—old and four counts of indecent assault on boys under 14 but they add that no inference of guilt should be drawn from the report they put out. i have ensured that this

investigation has been conducted fairly and objectively and with respect and without fear or favour. we have gone where the evidence has taken us, whether it supports or negates the allegations. most importantly, the report does not draw any conclusions as to the likely guilt or innocence of sir edward heath, or make any comment on any action the crown prosecution service may have taken if he was alive today. sir edward heath foundation called it profoundly unsatisfactory and believes it is neitherjustifies nor dispells the cloud of suspicion so was it right to investigate or have police been overzealous in pursuing allegations of little credibility against public figures such as sir edward heath? what should be the right way to proceed with claims of child

abuse when it is impossible to put the defendant on trial? joining me is doctor richard hoskins, an expert witness called in by wiltshire police to review their investigation but who has subsequently criticised its handling. talk us through what you found. this time last year i was presented by wiltshire police on their operation with two dossiers and an overview of the investigation, a briefing which included the a0 odd allegations to that point which have been made against edward heath, 14 forces and two dossiers, one of which with the historic witness statements from the 80s and which referred back to the 1950s, and the other was the operation midland evidence. they presented these dossiers to me and asked me to look at the allegations against edward heath and i did that and produced a report of 158 pages. it took me two months to compile and i presented it to the police and it did not go down particularly well.

because you raised doubts. i found the allegations made were fantastical, i counted 30 murders in total against innocent victims and alleged victims, some of which included edward heath's involvement apparently. they were lurid and incredible allegations. all of them? the ones that i looked at. the police afterwards said that was only one strand but it was very important in the investigation. what was the reaction from the police? they were not happy with what i concluded and they said i appeared to call into question the credibility of the witnesses which was never my intention. i am a survivor of historic child six abuse, someone got ten years for it, so i have no axe to grind and i'm committed to the idea of investigating historic crimes against children provided

it is proportionate. my criticism thereafter was i think they should have called a halt at the point when i said this evidence was not stacking up, it was fantastical, they should have made it more proportionate. they are not making thatjudgment. people hear you say that you yourself were a victim, use but from sexual abuse in the past, they will surely think, that has to be right to allow the police to follow their investigation. it does but the problem is that we have had 20 plus opposite and £1.5 million spent on this and my concern is that in pursuing what i think has been something of a gravy train down the celebrity route, the true victim... gravy train is a weird phrase, isn't it? not really, if you look at the breakdown of expenditure, some of the things they have spent money on has been extraordinary

and it was released in some of the papers today. when you consider that normal, if you like, victims of child abuse that do not make the mainstream press are suffering day to day, they're not getting this attention. the amount of police effort that has gone into this has been disproportionate i think. thank you. joining us now is the chief executive of the national association of children abused in childhood and harvey proctor, the former conservative mp who received an apology after he was cleared of serious abuse claims by the met. if i can start with you, you will recognise a lot of what richard hoskins said from your own experience. yes. to be falsely accused is horrendous. i believe that operation conifer was not expeditious. police forces investigating live suspects have a duty in law to conduct their operations expeditiously.

conifer did not conduct itself expeditiously. when you look at this report, sir edward heath and those claims, allegations, seven counts, the rate of an 11—year—old boy, cases of abuse, serious cases of sexual abuse against under 14 is, what on earth would you say to people who were bringing these claims, allegations, that they should or should not be considered or investigated ? i said there should be an investigation that it should be proportionate to the resources available. and you think this is disproportionate? it is because when we came this morning, edward heath was innocent. and still is, they say there is no inference of guilt. and tonight he is still innocent. there was nothing that conifer could do about that because he was dead.

the police were very clear that this was never about finding edward heath guilty or otherwise, it was about, does the evidence, the allegations brought forward by these people, meet the threshold for bringing him in for questioning under caution had he been alive. but were they too credulous? i don't think so. out of the 40 allegations they investigated, only seven meet the threshold. i hear what dr hoskins is saying about that. in the report itself the wiltshire police said that the allegations of abuse that were brought forward, there was no evidence to find it happened. i believe it was proportionate. if you read through 0peration conifer, as i have done today, time and time and time again,

no cover—up, no evidence from people around him, from friends, fellow civil servants, politicians, cleaners, private secretaries, chauffeurs. what do you do... when people are coming forward... all of these are the negative comments. the flavour of that did not come out at the press conference today. they said this was about taking him in for questioning with very serious allegations, there is no presumption of guilt. and they had reached their conclusion two years or more before today. two years oi’ more... you can see how this would feel to somebody who has been in the position and has been cleared and had the apology and sees others going through exactly the same thing all over again. ted heath's reputation should never

have had to go through this, it was monstrous of wiltshire police. there is a balance to struck. i hear what you're saying. others say this investigation should never have happened but my question would be — what do we say? do we say to these victims and survivors who have had the courage to come forward in a lot of cases, we are sorry, because he is dead or because his reputation is more important than your account? what matters more ? you call them victims or survivors, and that is a specific choice of language. to harvey proctor they would not be victims or survivors, they would be claimants about something that is unproven. yes, but worth pointing out that it's enshrined in police guidance to give the confidence to come forward because so many people in the past were dismissed out of hand. can i say that i was interviewed under caution twice under operation midland, and as a result of that no

file was passed to the cps. and so this low hurdle of say, with regard to edward heath, that in a limited number of cases they might have wanted to question edward heath under caution, i want to know from the chief constable, if he had said no, would they have arrested him? this clearly comes from a background we are all aware of, the missed opportunity withjimmy savile and possibly... it's the pendulum swung too far and it's still too far and operation conifer is still the pendulum swinging too far. who decides that? the national police service, the national college of policing, operation hydrant, chief constable veal, chief constable simon bailey,

the echelons of the police... ..have not followed the independent advice of sir richard enriques, with regard to calling people complainants, not victims or survivors, and making sure that the allegations are fully investigated. but it's also true that the european court of human rights said there is more of an obligation to investigate those with high office because of all the worries about cover—up. i never complained about being investigated, but they had to investigate expeditiously in midland, which they did not, and they didn't expeditiously investigate in conifer. do you feel comfortable with the way police investigations are going now? because we've seen what happened with harvey proctor and we know where we are with sir edward heath. it won't be the end

so what happens now and where does this kind of investigation go with those who cannot defend themselves? it's a constant negotiation and balancing act between the encouraging victims and survivors to come forward and have that confidence, because they have been failed in the past, failed dreadfully, but at the same time, and with harvey's experience himself, they can also go too far the other way. so what we need to do is, where does the balance lie between those the rights of those who been accused of this abused to have their reputations protected and the rights of victims and survivors to be heard and respected. and that should be obtained by investigation of operation conifer and national policing. four days on from the horrific shooting, police in las vegas say they still have very little sense of the mass murderer, his motive or background. his girlfriend arrived back in america and said she had no idea of his intention. the gunman‘s family members seem equally at a loss

to explain his actions. john swinney went to find stephen paddock‘s home town to see if people could shed any light on him and what happened a year ago that sent him on his gun buying spree. this is mesquite, on the arizona—nevada border, beneath the golden butte wilderness. a classic town of the american west — safe, prosperous, nothing ever happens here. but mesquite is the town stephen paddock called home. it's where he assembled his arsenal. it's where he planned the taking of so many lives. so what does this place tell us about who the killer was? and why did he do what he did? the argument raging in america is notjust about owning guns, that's a given. it's about owning the types of guns that can kill 59 people in a matter of minutes.

paddock bought some of his killing machines here, at guns and guitars. no one inside would speak to us on camera. passers—by are in shock, yet believe not much can be done. why allow people to buy these things? guns? effectively submachine guns. that's crazy, isn't it? it's insane. so why don't you stop it? stop it? how do we stop it? well, you pass a law. what law? that you can only have a rifle? you don't think you can pick people off with a rifle? you know what happens in britain? they stab each other. yes, they do... well, they do! they stab each other! but a knife... but a knife, sean, is a way less effective way of killing lots of people. you have a nutter who goes nuts, a paranoid schizophrenic, he can stab or kill one or two people. one ortwo? what about a car? a car? that can happen, but it's less effective. run people over with a car. this was where paddock lived.

not a young, radicalised zealot, but a but a wealthy, semi—retired real estate investor. none of his neighbours would speak to us on camera. but one did tell us that since he moved to the town two years ago, she had seen him only twice. another? that he was a stranger to his own cul—de—sac. we've been asking around town and what is striking about stephen paddock is the absence of interaction with the community here. it's almost as if he set out deliberately to keep his footprints in this community as small and as limited as possible. the one thing he did do in town was gamble. he played video poker at $100 a bet. his girlfriend believed that he was a kind and thoughtful man. there is no narrative, nothing about this man that we yet know that leads to what happened on sunday. we all come together as americans...

in the town where he lived without trace, they watch the president express his condolences to the victims. the gun lobby has now accepted the need for some controls on accessories that make guns more lethal. but does anyone here favour stricter controls on guns themselves? i want to have the freedom to own a gun, hunt with it and, if i need to, to protect my family and myself. i don't want the criminal to be the only one that has a weapon. 0k? in america, people who own guns tend to own a lot of them. they are politically organised. sure of their own convictions. they are also grounded in america's founding myths of faith, freedom, and frontier. the right to bear arms is carved into the american soul.

the battle over guns is about where you draw the lines, about which weapons are permitted and which are not. and, it is a fault line that runs so deep, it could tear america apart. mike young is a conservative commentator in the local paper. he believes there are loopholes in gun laws that need tightening. but he is wary of strict controls on automatic weapons. do you have a gun yourself? i do. what have you got? i have a shot gun, i have a 22 pistol, i have a 38 pistol and i have a 22 rifle. four guns. what do you need four guns for? you live next to a golf course! it seems like it is in your dna, to have a gun. do you feel that this culture of gun ownership is in some way responsible for enabling what stephen paddock did?

i definitely think that you are right. you are correct. the culture does allow that. then why not change it? cultures a re extremely difficult to change. especially when you have a very strong minority. who would resist it, perhaps with violence, when you try to take people's guns. that would be the point where you have terrible conflict. i am not sure... i cannot believe that conservative gun owners could possibly win. but, there would be a total breakdown in america and american society. is that why people like you want to have guns? yes. in case of trouble ahead? yes. and this sounds fantastical... in case of almost civil war? i think we are probably closer to it than we have been, at least in my lifetime.

not one person we met in the town where paddock lived was in favour stricter gun controls. the brutal truth is that here, most accept that blood is part of america's contract with guns. the killer may not have been part of this town, but what he was, and what he did, was very much part of america. john sweeney there in nevada. wejudge everyone, says doctor amy cuddy on two things. their warmth and their power. we are constantly, if unintentionally, sending other people signals about our own warmth and power. when a social psychologist looked into the performance of students in her own class, she found it was often the men who spread out, stretched out and held power poses, she called them, and had stronger participation in class and ultimately better grades. she wanted to know if women could learn this, if your body could

retrain your mind. her ted talk has had more than a0 million views and shejoins us from san francisco now. it's good of you to join us. your research is to train women to stretch out or assume a different pose before class? yes, i am trying to and train them to not do that. when you think about little girls, they are running around with their arms in the air, taking up space and they are not afraid to show their strength. it is when they get to middle school they collapse and make themselves small. they behave in a way that is more apologetic. it isn't an innate gender difference, they are learning. women learn to take up less space than men through the images and messages we share with them. is manspreading quite a good thing then? does it get you power when

you sit down? well, people love using that example! manspreading is certainly an example of a powerful posture. it is not one that you want to use in front of other people. keep in mind that when you are having an interaction, you are going for conveying confidence, but also showing that you are engaged and interested in being there. manspreading doesn't really signal that. my thoughts about what we can do for women is to start earlier. start with our daughters. by the age of five, kids are learning the stereotype that expansiveness is associated with males, and contracted mess is associated with females. the stereotype gets stronger and we should be teaching our daughters to take their fair share of space, show their ideas and strengths and do so in a way that is unapologetic. that's how you get women to speak up in the boardroom, encourage your daughters to do that too. and that filters through into the workplace, do you see that? yes, absolutely. people say to me, how do you get

women to speak up in the boardroom? i cannot help but say do not ever tell your daughters to stop speaking up. we need to actually start earlier. start younger. it isn't that they are born thinking they shouldn't speak up but somehow we send them images of princesses with their elbows pinned to their sites, looking tiny. saying things like set like a lady, don't be bossy. " they are entitled to the same amount of space physically or generally in the world. speaking up in a meeting isn't about taking time that sharing ideas, and having expansive thoughts and creativity, and connecting in an expansive way. a lot of your work looks at the judgments we make on leaders, whether presidential candidates or prime ministers, we have a clip of our own prime minister in power. how would you interpret that?

i think that she seems a combination of confident and open in this clip. i do not see any uneasiness there. she seems relaxed, and she seems like she is projecting a combination, to me, of both confidence and openness, which is really what you want. that is how that begins, at least. memorably, hillary clinton complained of donald trump looming over her in those presidential debates, she wrote that in her book. if you are a woman in that position, a woman who feels like she is being loomed over by a bigger and stronger man, what is your social interaction then? yeah, i thought she handled it incredibly well. that is not a new idea. taking up space is one thing that occupying other people's is a very dominant and alpha move.

it goes back to centuries, lyndonjohnson would do this, hovering over people, and it was called the johnson treatment, it intimidated people. if you are in the position, male or female, and somebody is using dominant behaviour and taking up your space, you need to stand your ground, and hold your own. do not back off. you do not try and out—alpha first the other person. if you do that, you get a spiral. you get a spiral of dominant behaviour and when you back off it suggests the other person is winning. you need to stand still, and do not be intimidated by it. and i guess that your work focuses on how to change the physical, to help the content. you could approach it the other way and say, why can't we be better at hearing the content

and ignoring the physical? well, i would say the words that you use, it isn't difficult to change. we can do that quite easily but when i think about content, i think more about changing the way that we think by saying am not going to think that way any more". it doesn't work very well. when we feel stressed, challenged and pressured and we say everything is fine, i am ok, we are not very good at that. we feel like we are lying to ourselves but what we are good at doing is changing our body language to match how we want to feel. if we adopt a more powerful posture, it leads us to feel more powerful and more assertive and confident when we go into these challenging situations. that is something we can do which is free and can incrementally change how we behave and change how we interact and, ultimately, affect our outcomes, over time, as we move forward. amy cuddy, thank you for joining us this evening.

amy is part of the bbc‘s 100 women campaign. kazou ishiguro did not often intervene in political matters but when we left the eu, he came to newsnight to do just that. here he is... i think this is very serious. in my whole life time here, i don't think i've felt this anxious. the nation is very bitterly divided. it is leaderless, it is anxious. if i was a strategist for the far right now, i would be getting very excited. this is probably the best opportunities since the 1930s to push britain towards a neo—nazi racism. i think we've got to... all of the decent people in this country, people on both sides of the

referendum divide have got to rally around some sort of decent heart of britain. i think that decent heart... i do not doubt it. a very quiet night. the weather is looking pretty good tomorrow. sunshine on the way. the start to the day will be chilly. at the moment, a window of fine weather. we are in between weather systems. another one in the north atlantic. that will remain in place during the weekend, unfortunately. it looks like we have some fine weather until then, at least. clear skies across

then, at least. clear skies across the uk. towns and cities by friday, ex—8 degrees. in rural areas, —1. starting the day in scotland. northern ireland, a beautiful morning. the far north of scotland, the south on the channel coast, the same, 8—9. light winds as well. a lovely start to friday. not a lot is going to change through the morning into the afternoon across england, wales, most of scotland. the weather front will move off of the atlantic. it will cloud things over in northern ireland in scotland, especially in the west. getting into the hebrides by late afternoon. by sunsetin the hebrides by late afternoon. by sunset in the belfast. later in the evening, glasgow. looking fine and

dry across much of the uk. saturday, a completely different story. after a completely different story. after a beautiful friday, saturday, overcast. wind coming off of the atlantic. cloudy conditions. not wet. it will not be heavy rain. a little bit through the morning and afternoon. some sunshine in the forecast in newcastle and hull. brightness down south. sunday, a brighter day. showers around. overall, better compared to saturday. 1a in glasgow. summarising the weekend. a lot of cloud around, especially on saturday. rain as well. sunday, by that time, things should brighten up just that little bit. for the time being, quiet tonight and tomorrow, and then the weekend, up and down. and that is

your weather. this is newsday. i'm rico hizon, in singapore. the headlines: the white house and top republicans say they will examine a limited change to gun laws, after the las vegas shootings. we are expecting hearing some other important fact—finding efforts on that. we want to be part of that discussion. we are certainly opened about moving forward. australia's cardinal pell appears in court. we may learn new details of the abuse case against this senior vatican figure. i'm kasia madera, in london. also in the programme: crackdown in cambodia. an opposition leader who's fled he country tells the bbc she wants international sanctions. and the author kazuo ishiguro wins the nobel prize for literature.