the i says the actress alice evans. the i says the gp could ban some patients who call themselves dr google. and all but two young chicks have been wiped out in a penguin colony. that's a summary of the news, we'll have a full bulletin at midnight. this kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated anywhere. whether it is in entertainment, politics. it is the entitlement of too many men and it is epidemic. this is part of women's world since time immemorial. and i think women are saying, forget influence, we want power. could one sexual predator in a bath gown prompt a social transformation on a massive scale? the scandal of harvey weinstein is having an effect well beyond hollywood as a spotlight is thrown on men, women, power and sex. we'll ask if the conversation that has opened up this week will have a permanent effect on outlawing unacceptable behaviour that has been silently tolerated. also tonight:

what is the purpose of a deal which at best only delays iran's nuclear deal for a short time? we ask what trump's repudiation of the iran nuclear deal means for iran, the us and the world. also: vikings, the first heroes who slashed into their own bodies and drank their own blood. we look into the life of the punk poet kathy acker with her new biographer, chris kraus. i think happiness is greatly overrated. happiness has become the neoliberal aspiration. hello. the revelations from so many women about harvey weinstein have been a shock to the hollywood system. the police in london and new york are now investigating. but it goes beyond the man himself.

amazon studio's chief, roy price, has been put on leave — there is a sexual harassment allegation against him, and he is accused of taking no action when an actress told him of her rape by harvey weinstein. there's been shock this week at the extent of weinstein's sexual aggression, but above all, at the fact that so many individuals had a sense of it, without it ever being properly called out in public. a kind of complicity of silence. except, this week, it feels as though something may have changed. the unrestrained outpouring of allegations, and the shared repulsion at them, could make this a watershed, not just for hollywood, but for society too. the light thrown on to the issue of men sexually intimidating women makes it hard to imagine we can ever go back to the kind of hush that has characterised the weinstein case. you might call this a savile moment, one of those inflection points where a subject talked about in private whispers suddenly

gets the public airing it deserves. now, when it comes to sexual aggression by powerful men towards women, it's tempting to think it must be a particular hollywood phenomenon — an industry mostly run by men, there's a special place in it for attractive women, and careers are often made by personal contact. in addition, hollywood has thrived on the promotion of generally sexist tropes that were perhaps considered socially acceptable in their day. please say hello to dink. hi, dink. dink, say goodbye to felix. hmm? man talk. this is not my idea of a swell time. excuse me, sir, i need a guide to delhi. but for all of that, this is notjust something that can

be palmed off onto the movies alone. talk to any woman and they'll have tales to relate of inappropriate advances or groping, of men taking things for granted. fix me a drink, will you? i don't know. mad men depicted inappropriate behaviour among 60s advertisers. it's never been acceptable, but it has been accepted. women, victims complain but are sometimes shrugged off, or they only feel able to register their discust informally to intimate friends. emma thompson put it rather well on last night's programme. this is a gender dysfunction. and the other thing is, it's a public health issue. this is not about one man, one man's crimes against women, this is about our system's imbalances, our system's gender crisis, and we have to act on this, we have to turn this on its head. we can't allow this to continue, because what it means is, naturally vulnerable people are going to continue to be preyed

upon, whether harvey weinstein goes to jail or not. interestingly, it seems that even if every individual on the planet knows about it, it's only when there is a public conversation that change is possible. this year, the public conversation has been louder. taylor swift called out the unacceptable behaviour of a dj on a promotional photo shoot. she gained dignity rather than losing it in taking the case to court. the women who have talked about weinstein have gained respect, too. today, from hillary clinton, in her comments on the latest revelations. and i really commend the women who have been willing to step forward now and tell their stories. but i think it's important that we notjust focus on him and whatever consequences flow from the stories about his behaviour, but that we recognise this kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated anywhere, whether it's in entertainment, politics...

after all, we have someone admitting to being a sexual assaulter in the oval office. there has to be a recognition that we must stand against this kind of, you know, action that is so sexist and mysoginistic. the more that now come forward in regard to weinstein, the easier it is for others to do so. and the public condemnation heaped upon weinstein this week is a warning to those pondering on the same kind of behaviour. harvey weinstein has "unequivocally denied" any "allegations of non—consensual sex". but let us talk now about the wider issues thrown up this week. with me now is the feminist writer and activist natasha walter. the actor rosie hilal — who is on equity‘s women's committee. and the writer and guardian columnist, tim lott. good evening to you all. rosie, is this worse in entertainment? is there something in entertainment that makes it particularly vulnerable? i would say the vulnerability is increased in entertainment because it is a secretive industry.

it is a glamorous industry which means women have to be young and beautiful. it is quite chauvinistic industry traditionally, as you have just shown with the clips. it is also an industry where jobs are very, very fragile. you only have a job for a short amount of time. you get a newjob every few months. women get half as manyjobs as men because they are always outnumbered three to one on any screen stage or media platform. i am part of a campaign group that wants to change this. and you are wearing the badge. i think there are more opportunities for groping. there are intimate scenes filmed. it is a more vulnerable industry in that way. but it is notjust a a unique hollywood thing. we saw those clips, natasha, and they look a bit out of place now.

i think you can see very sexist clips in films today. you can go through what would movies and tv series which are coming out now and also pick out clips which show incredible sexualisation of women and sexual violence against women. it is endemic in our culture. it goes on so much because women's voices are not given their full place. how much of a link is there between what you are describing, objectification, putting women up as sexual objects in movies, to what extent is that linked to the kind of bad behaviour? i think it is all linked. it is not the same. seeing it on a movie screen is not the same as experiencing it in real life at the hands of your producer, that all these things are linked. as a feminist myself, i think at first i was quite naive about how you can change political

structures, without actually the work that one has to do to change cultural attitudes. i think we do have to recognise that they are very much linked. and the kind of dehumanisation that you see in the alleged behaviour of harvey weinstein, the way that he could just treat young women as objects, with no interest in their desires and their consent. that does spring out of a wider culture in which women are dehumanised and our voices are not heard. i want to come to him because i want to hear a man's voice but you are nodding as natasha talks. tim, do you feel there is a link between the objectification, and we see women who are much more judged by their looks that the men. and weinstein's behaviour? it is hard to deny. the only point i would make, and you may disagree with me, but i think there has been an improvement over the last 50 years, hasn't there?

if we look at those clips alone you think, that is quite shocking watching that stuff and i don't think you would get away with anything like that now. have you watched game of thrones? i have. there is a lot of sex and violence in that. there are a lot of balancing factors as well. i think you are right, that things have improved and i think there are things that we would not have seen a decade ago. the shame that women might once have felt about speaking about these things, and this is a wonderful thing, they are beginning to speak up. i just want to stay on objectification because i want to know what you can do about it. rosie, you have the idea that you just have more women in roles? do you think you can take the fact that basically, a lot of men will go to the film because there are glamorous

good—looking women and that makes a film more appealing? interestingly, i think we are all slightly brainwashed by watching decades of this sort of stuff and women also have unconscious bias in that way and identify with those sort of roles and look past some of that uncomfortable stuff because that is what they are used to. i would not say it is more successful and men by more tickets. in theatre women buy 68% of the tickets that only very few women get to write plays and they are always outnumbered by the men still. you can change it by changing the structure certainly. you don't think it sells films to have attractive women in films? it may sell films to have attracted men as well. you can see women fasten on films

which are women's voices and well rounded women's characters and well—written parts. you look at the success of some female directed films and plays, there is a huge untapped vein there. i want to hear tim's and view as well. what i wanted to say was i am slightly more essentialist and i am slightly more pessimistic about the effect that rearranging the culture, the effect it can have, because i do tend to think, particularly with the massive growth in the pornography industry which i think has been very retrograde and has almost produced an upper lip again in the objectification of women. and the fact that is consumed 90% by men. i don't think one can argue all of that away by saying if we just rearrange the culture in some way. i think there is something, perhaps best deal is not a right word, it is overdramatic, i mean there is something biological in the male sexuality and power. i think that is a very dangerous thing to say.

i don't care. i would like to think we can raise this kind of behaviour by simply rearranging society. ijust don't think it is true. i think power to be redistributed. you cannot change what men want but women want things as well and at the moment they are not getting it. an harvey weinstein's reducer team, it is an all—male board, if this had been 50% women he may not have got away with it. i agree with that. you cannot eradicate desire. i am not saying things cannot be done but there is probably a limit. women have desire as well. their desire needs to be represented. multifaceted characters have to be seen. are we getting less sexist as a society? i think we are in a complex point in western society.

i think we are standing at a crossroads. some things are improving. there is also the rise in mainstream pornography which make things very difficult for young women. we are at a very important time now. i think we could look back at this moment and say that was a turning point and after that things did get better, or we could see it as a huge sort of flare—up and outpouring and then business as usual. i think that is the danger, often, when you get these huge media kerfuffles around something. do we really have the will, do we have the solidarity, will we go on taking action when this storm around harvey weinstein has ended? tim, do you think this is a turning point? it's impossible to say. you would ask ifjimmy savile was? you would hope so. let's wait and see. the trouble is that these seductions of power are so great for men

and women, frankly, and the seductions of money are so great that people are corrupted, and i don't think you will ever get rid of corruption. that's the problem. one of the things that might change is the willingness of women and victims to call it out. now, rosie, do you think that has changed? people are doing it and their dignity is intact. what are the impediments we can remove to make it easier for people? because that will make a lasting change, won't it? quite frankly, in the industry we are talking about, the tv or entertainment industry, as i keep saying, women have fewerjob opportunities and so they are more worried traditionally about their next job. they also stop being employed after the age of 35—40. can't we have a sex pest hotline that they could phone anonymously, and then if a lot of people phone with the same name repeatedly?

equity promised to deal with if necessary anonymously. also, if we give women more work and treat them as equals, and they continue working through the ages... they stop after 40 and there is hardly anyone out there. then they will not be as worried about whether next job is coming from, and it will be acceptable. let's not put all the onus on women to speak out. some of the women who were affected by harvey weinstein's behaviour were not listened to. if all of us decided to act and listen... we'll leave it there. we'll see if there's permanent change in some years' time. things may have gone quiet on north korea for a few days, but president trump has now turned his attention to iran. he has decided to disavow the 2015 nuclear deal — he has never thought it was tough enough on iran,

and he thinks iran is in breach anyway. but it was a fiery statement this evening. the deal allows iran to continue developing certain elements of its nuclear programme, and importantly, in just a few years, as key restrictions disappear, iran can sprint towards a rapid nuclear weapons break—out. in other words, we got weak inspections in exchange for no more than a purely short—term and temporary delay in iran's path to nuclear weapons. what is the purpose of a deal that, at best, only delays iran's nuclear capability for a short period of time? we knew this was coming, but it is a huge headache for the other signatories of the deal — britain, germany, france, russia and china. worth saying, though,

mr trump has not actually done anything to dismantle the deal yet. congress will play a big part in deliberations now. so, the president could be talking tough. or this could be one step to exiting the deal. i am nowjoined by sir adam thomson. he was the former uk permanent representative to nato when the deal was struck, now director of the european leadership network. meanwhile, from washington, behnam ben taleblu. he is a firm critic of the iran nuclear deal and is an analyst at the foundation for the defense of democracies, a washington—based think—tank whose slogan is "fighting terrorism and promoting freedom". can i ask you each first whether you think this is effectively going to be the end of the deal. adam? no, i don't think so. i think president trump's decision could have been worse. the process that he has launched could yet make the situation worse. if you asked the ministers and generals and diplomats of the european leadership network, they would say that he has already made a mistake, and the us congress could make a worse one. a lot of the money says congress

won't actually do that. behnam ben taleblu, what do you think now happens to the deal? thank you for having me. removing certification is not akin to withdrawing from the paris accord or unesco, it simply takes the issue back to congress and commits to a broader debate on the threats iran poses to washington and allies in the region, and it permits washington to debate nuclear versus non—nuclear sanctions. if things continue as they are, in the future, in the next 60 days congress will likely not pass support for sanctions and will give support to the non—nuclear sanctions and seek to create triggers or more pressure points to get iran to renegotiate. so this is not the end. adam, the chance of getting a renegotiation is what?

can that happen? what will europe do? i think the chance of renegotiating the existing deal is zero, notjust because iran won't do it, but because other international powers won't play that game. can we talk about whether this deal is worth saving, whether this is the right deal? behnam ben, you are something of a sceptic about this. what is wrong with the deal, in a nutshell? it rests on two assumptions: one is that you can remove the broader threat from the nuclear threat, and that over time and with the infusion of sanctions relief, basically cash, tehran will moderate its behaviour, because this deal has sunset clauses that have restrictions that lapse over time. so at the end, the us has little economic leverage, and at the end of it tehran will have a nuclear programme that it can quickly use to constitute a weapons programme.

and ballistic missiles, they can test at the moment, and they are, correct? they are not allowed to be tested. that has been watered down. the un security council resolution contains an annex, annex b, that contains prohibitions on ballistic missile testing. the language has been watered down, but iran continues to transgress this nonetheless. adam, i didn't realise that iran was testing ballistics missiles at the moment and is apparently complying with the deal. is the deal all it is cracked up to be? it is, because at least for a limited period of time, and by limited we mean 10—15—25 years for different elements of, so something that will long outlast mr trump's presidency, iran is effectively unable to develop a nuclear weapon.

but five minutes after the deal expires, i mean, they would be very —— won't be far away from having intercontinental ballistic missile is that are nuclear armed. the purpose of this deal was to deal with an immediate problem, which was iran's nuclear programme. it gave both the international community and iran itself a breathing space, ten years, in which to experiment with a different type of relationship. the hope is you might change your mind over the duration. behnam ben taleblu, what was the alternative to the deal? you probably wouldn't have negotiated a better one, and what is your alternative? basically, you just would have to attack iran, which is not an attractive option. it is not attractive, but it was not being floated as an option. diplomacy was basically what was needed, and we need to let the sanctions that were levied in 2010, that escalated in 2012 and really hit their high water

mark in 2013, play out. if you recall, in the secret diplomacy between iran and the us, 2012 is when the us gave the enrichment concession and 2013 was when us began to ease sanctions on precious metals and petrochemicals, then also ink the joint plan of action, the interim deal, which got us to this final deal. the us should have maintained a pressure strategy because tehran was playing a game of chicken, and the us blinked first. thank you, both. writer chris kraus is most famously known for her cult hit i love dick, which is a semi—autobiographical book turned amazon series about her obsession with her then husband's eponymous work colleague dick. dick's surname is never given. chris's latest work is a biography of the late feminist punk—writer, poet and performance artist kathy acker, who was also her former husband's former lover.

stephen smith had the opportunity to catch up with chris kraus to talk about her latest book. memories of kathy are in this very kind of high fashion, you know, high punk priestess post—punk aesthetic. i wanted to really understand her life through her. why are we interested in her? because of her achievement as a writer. and i think a writer really can read another writer in a way that few others can. so i kept writing to keep my mind together while i was doing basically dirty movies and the sex show. that was the other side of me, was the streets, and the two things in a way i guess were schizophrenia, but a schizophrenia that never tore me apart. if we're going to judge somebody by the standards of the self—help book, yeah, her life

was not very successful! but taking the longer view, if we accept that her highest goal was to pursue her work as a writer, every choice that she ever made lined up with that. my race, said my husband, came from far—away. vikings. the first heroes who slashed into their own bodies, then drank down their own blood. kathy acker was a ground—breaking and controversial feminist writer with a tumultuous personal life. as well as a striking model for the likes of robert mablethorpe. when she moved to london in the ‘80s, it was as if writer and city embraced each other. during the thatcher years, she was perfect. and the debut of blood and guts in 1984 hit straight into a sweet spot. it was almost like she was waiting to happen before she did. literature has always been taken more seriously in the uk

than in the us. it's also a lot more exclusionary than it is in the us. the english literary, the sort of oxbridge business, is predicated among other things upon class. what do i think of class? you know, i mean, bring back nuclear weapons and nuke the public schools, is what i think of the english literary establishment. kathy acker‘s trailblazing career and messy life have been chronicled by chris kraus, who knew many people in acker‘s circle. i knew from the get—go that there were a lot of untruths in the story. i hired a private investigator in new york. a gumshoe. because i thought it was very important to figure out how was she living, how was she supporting herself? she received an inheritance. she was a little disingenuous about this later on. how do you reflect on her life overall?

i mean, it was not a happy or a calm life. i think happiness is greatly overrated. happiness has become the neo—liberal aspiration. i think kathy is very instructive now. this is about me missing you, even though i have never met you, dick. kraus is best known for the autobiographical novel i love dick, later a tv series. it is based on her obsession with a critic called dick and the many notes she wrote to him, some with the help of her then husband. dick, that's right? that's me. well, it's an 18th—century sex farce set at the end of the late 20th century. stay the hell away. the letter writing becomes a gateway somehow. it becomes a gateway drug for the character chris's desire to speak and her realisation that

for 20 years, she has been kind of on the edges of the art world like a fly on the wall, observing a lot but not ever really been given the authority or the opportunity to speak. what do think has touched people about it? she's willing to make a fool of herself. she is willing to not be right all the time, and i think that's refreshing, because there is so much pressure on people in general and young women especially, to be right all the time, to be happy all the time, to put on a brave and successful face. so a book that reveals the mess behind the scenes, i think that is very refreshing. i don't find you interesting, not now, not ever. oh, god. i was very consciously writing a comedy. i mean, it is not the first book that has ever done it. you could say that is the bridget jones of the intellectual world! steven smith with chris kraus. in the daily telegraph tomorrow:

hammond in bizarre outburst at any meet eu. he apologised for it. they say his political fightback unravelled. the daily mail also on hammond: the lobster plot. how he and george osborne conspired at a seafood restaurant in chelsea days before the chancellor threw a spanner in the brexit works. in the guardian: brexit row breaks into war of words. hammond apologises for calling the eu enemy. both sides prepare for a new deal. and, finally, the daily express: this is storm ophelia, who is heading our way, and doing so almost 30 years exactly after the great storm of 1987. people are calling it a hurricane, ‘hurricane hell'. that's all for this evening. but before we go, the us postal service motto is ‘neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom

of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds‘. now northern california is currently being swept by wildfires. buildings, homes and countryside have in many cases been burnt to the ground, over an enormous area. but as aerial cinematographer douglas thron filmed the devastation, he unexpectedly spotted a us postie taking that motto to heart. goodnight. gentle piano music