also tonight, do your kids deserve a tax break more than you lot? now the chancellor is looking to win back the youth vote by putting money in their pockets. guess what these two think about that. and this... you just come back. you come all the way back. as themes of race, poverty and patriotism dominate america, we talk to mary] blige and director dee rees about their mississippi period movie, mudbound. how much has america changed since the 19405? i thought that things had changed. when i saw president obama, when he was located, that day, i saw a separation. —— when he was elected. they showed people over here hearing and then they showed another side that was very piseed off. —— cheering. good evening. the prime minister's dinner in brussels — downing street insisted today — had "been in the diary for weeks". no, they reassured us, it was not a response to a growing panic. no, it was not an emergency measure

to unblock the deadlock. and no, it didn't mean theresa may was increasingly worried about the idea of no deal on brexit. so that's clear. and even though none of the europeans could quite remember when the dinner withjean claudejuncker had been finalised, we have to believe, because they told us, it was always on tonight's menu. the discussion at table will not be made public until whatjuncker ominously calls "the autopsy". but first, reports this evening suggest negotiations between the two sides have accelerated. let's go live to our diplomatic editor, mark urban, who — we'll let you into a secret — didn't have this trip in his diary for weeks. it wasn't in my diary, if it means another trip to the european commission, who's complaining? we all know what happened back in april. there was this dinner in downing street between the president of the commission, jean—claude juncker, and theresa may, which by all accounts went pretty badly.

people briefed against her from the commission side saying she hadn't really understood the complexities of what the uk was engaged in and cast doubt about the possible success of the whole process. tonight the two leaders put out a statement which had a very different tone to it. it talked about a constructive and friendly atmosphere to their discussions and about a determination to accelerate the article 50 or brexit talks process. but there was also a tone that one could pick up from it that the whole thing had to happen according to procedure. in that one can see a determination on the part of the commission that there shouldn't be any diplomatic show boating by the british prime minister, coming in to decide the fate of europe over the roast lamb this evening or indeed, going over the heads of negotiators in brussels to the member states, which is something that downing street has talked about a bit in recent weeks. instead, they're insisting that the right channels, ie david davis talking to michel barnier,

their negotiator, and the right procedure being followed, albeit accelerating if that's possible to do so. of course, when it comes to that procedure, they are very committed to this sequence add preach in which there must be broad agreement on those key three separation issues, which are citizens' rights, the money, of course, and the irish border before they'll move onto the stuff the british really want to talk about — the transition package and the future trade arrangement. now the british in this moment are suggesting that they are dragging their heels, that they're being too punctillious about this procedure and want to get on to other issues. the europeans, not surprisingly, want to get key issues settled first. who is it that's really driving this position to stick strictly to that sequencing? is it the commission head quartered here, michel barnier is

part of their team. or is it the member governments? our political editor nick watt has been investigating. moves, countermoves and a multifaceted opponent. extracting the uk from half a century of entanglement with the eu was always going to be a fiendishly complex game. but this game turns into a full blown headache when you are unclear aboutjust who is your greatest adversary. michel barnier, the eu's chief negotiator, had been identified by britain as "the" figure most likely to adropt an inflexible approach. —— adopt. in recent weeks, it's been angela merkel and emmanuel macron, who've ta ken a tougher stance with the uk. downing street has

been surprised that it was michel barnier, rather than the french and german leaders, who acknowledged big gestures in theresa may's florence speech. with this in mind, the prime minister thinks it's highly unlikely that eu leaders will issue a formal declaration at their summit this week that sufficient progress has been made in the brexit negotiations. but theresa may is telling her fellow eu leaders that she currently has no more goodies in the locker and if at the very least they fail to reach out to her, then the overall talks will be in severe trouble. it all looked quite friendly in brussels tonight, where theresa may and jean—claude juncker agreed to accelerate the talks. that fell short of a declaration of sufficient progress, but it was enough to keep the show on the road. i think the prime minister made a very constructive and generous offer in florence. i do think that puts the burden and the responsibility now on the eu to respond

in a similarly constructive way. it's clear that progress has been made on eu citizens, on the irish border and i think that building on that progress is a good start for where we are now. in chancellories across europe, the first cracks on brexit are beginning to emerge. theresa may is hoping to exploit those differences, if, as she hopes, she's given a chance to update the eu summit. in some of the scandinavian countries and spain, there are signs of flexibility. but the prime minister faces scepticism in paris and berlin, where there is a growing feeling that the divisions in the uk cabinet make the uk an unreliable negotiator. you know what i'm puzzled, for me, the british diplomats were always phlegmatic, and very pragmatic. be what you are used to being and we will have a deal.

please leave some of the uncertain grounds you are sometimes using now, where ideology is replacing pragmatism and sense for the self—interest. so i hope we will avoid a crash. it will not be good for the uk. it would not be good for us. but it would also not be good for the world. i insist on that. france and the uk are two permanent members of the un security council. we are supposed to promote the rule of law worldwide. how can you ask rogue states to respect the rule of law, if we are not able to find a compromise and an agreement between us? the game is still in play after theresa may's rush to brussels. but britain faces the slog of slow and lengthy moves across the board before the end game comes into sight. well, to unpack where we are in those negotiations, what happened

this evening as well, we're joined by the senior member of the cdu, chancellor merk‘s party, of course, and a key figure in the european parliament. —— chancellor merkel‘s party. let's start with this accelerated pace to the article 50 talks that was spoken about this evening. what does that mean to you? what can we expect? it means on these three issues, citizens' rights, the money questions an the irish question, we should have a sufficient progress now until december. that will make it faster because we were not successful enough in this negotiation that the european council can make a decision this weekend to start with the second phase of negotiations, we hope this will now be more accelerated in order to come through that result. you think it's realistic to hope that the broad agreement can be there on those three things by december, do you? or do you think that's not a realistic hope? we are constructive.

we want such a solution. we prepare for this second phase already. the european council say that also we have to prepare for that, also the european parliament we do that. we need a sufficient progress not a solution, not a final figure in the money, but the acceptance of what we have to achieve in this questions and the modalities. i have more a feeling that a fight within the tory party about leadership is stopping us for coming to such a result than anything else. i'm interested that you mention the money. is that the key one of the three in your view? and why wasn't theresa may's formula in her florence speech that no country would have to pay more and no country would receive less, why wasn't that good enough? it must be clear what it means in practical terms. that was very general. put it down what it means in practical terms. since florence, we've

read about that. that is a nice speech. but it's not a proposal for negotiations. but it answers the political needs of the other 27 members that germany and other countries, net contributors, won't give more and that the recipients won't receive less. what could be better? proclamations are not results of negotiations. are you saying that idea has not been formally put across the negotiating table in there in sufficient detail? yeah. not in sufficient detail. what it means in practical terms, which britain has to fulfil its commitments over the present financial period, for example because we're saying in my country, all that we have to pay for. many questions have to pay for longer for, britain is one of the 28 have voted for. this responsibility has to be taken on board. the question of pensions and many other things have to be discussed. it's not a figure we want to see now.

it's the principles? it's the principle on which the commitments exist. and the principles on the citizens' rights, where this is sustainable, notjust a question of british law and british courts. these people must know that they can, that their lifelong, the people there now, lifelong security that they can live under the circumstances. there seems to be greater optimism that this citizens' rights issue is closer to resolution than the financial one. do you think that's fair or do you think that's misplaced that optimism, that it's still a big gap. i think you are right in that. this is solvable, easier solvable. there is also a principle question in the united kingdom to come to a solution to that. i think the financial question is more difficult because nobody in britain is ready to say the truth for its own party people and to the country.

that is the main obstacles. thank you very much. we will have to see whether that obstacle can be overcome in time for december, the time table the uk government wants. back to you. it's no secret thatjeremy corbyn‘s appeal to younger voters has spooked the conservatives. and it's probably no secret they're exploring ways now to make them feel listened to and to bring them into the political fold. one idea being explored by the chancellor in his autumn budget is, we understand, tax breaks for the young. it would mean cutting tax relief for older and richer workers, to help fund earners in their 20s and 30s. is he right to try and restack the deck for the next generation? here's helen thomas. is the government about to open up a new front in the battle of the generations? and use tax as a weapon?

the idea of using the tax system to benefit certain age groups isn't actually knew. —— new. but it's older people that have tended to benefit. in the past, they got a higher tax—free personal allowance. and there's the current exception of national insurance for the over 65s. hitting workers to bolster the incomes of the elderly made sense when each cohort was richer than its parents. but that generational improvement has stalled. so, would a tax break help the average 30—year—old ? they earn on average £24,400, and on that they pay £4500 in tax. someone over 65 on the same income would pay only £2600, £1900 less. halving the basic rate of income tax to 10% would cut our average millennials tax bill, and mean a £1300 saving. but the young are more likely to be in lower paying jobs.

those earning under £11,500, the tax—free allowance, do not pay income tax at all. cutting income tax rates could help those young people who are already relatively better off. so how about national insurance? well, that kicks in after earnings reach close to £8,200. increasing the threshold to the same as income tax would save our 30—year—old about £400 a year. it helps more low earners, although still not the very lowest paid. so, where does the money come from? removing the exemption on national insurance for the over 65s could save perhaps £1 billion per year. pensions tax breaks are a much bigger and more complicated target, the government wants people to be saving more towards retirement. and pensions changes could still hit workers rather

than wealthy retirees. tax may prove a blunt tool in trying to mend generationalfences. collision of stars tax may prove a blunt tool in trying to mend generationalfences. helen thomas. well, ros altman is here. she was a former pensions minister under david cameron and believes we should spend more, not less, on older people. alsojoining us comedian ahir shah. he has been called one of his generation's most eloquent voices — by the telegraph — and is currently on tour with his show "control". it's lovely to have you both here. it may be a blunt tool, but it is a pretty easy one to start with, isn't it? if the tories are trying to reset things, you start with helping the young, that you recognise are really struggling at the moment, don't you? i think there are a lot of people struggling actually, and age isn't necessarily a defining characteristic. i would rather see us looking at the source of the problem. the source of the problem, for many younger people, is the problem we have in the housing market and the cost of student debt for those who have gone

on to higher education. those two issues are at the heart of some of the problems younger people are struggling with. that would suggest to me that rather than trying to discriminate in the tax system on the grounds of age, we should directly address those issues. if you like, there are lots of universal benefits or privileges that are weighted, many people would agree, but it does discriminate in terms of it favouring older people? that isn't so much the tax system as the benefits system. the issue is, if you are a younger person with your whole life ahead of you, you can look forward to having more earnings and more income but once you are in retirement, that's it. you are done. i think that part of the problem is the lack of optimism that seemingly has to underpin part of the intergenerational contract.

my generation are one of the first with the expectation that we will be substantially worse off than our parents. the idea of a mythical future where i am suddenly earning enough and all of this will be ok seems entirely fictional. i think you are absolutely right that there are huge problems on the supply side of housing. also, i don't really know how one does tackle that without some major change to the tax system. you have to build more homes. exactly, but the only way that happens is through much larger state involvement in the construction of houses which will need some tax to be levied in some regards. you could use pension fund assets to improve social lot of insurance companies are beginning to do that and you could also use pension assets to build infrastructure and boost the economy. going back to that idea, would you be against tax breaks for earners in their 20s and 30s, which is what the chancellor is mooting now. my concern with that is if you are 35, or if you are 40, or 45, and you are on a low income and you've struggled

all the way through, you wouldn't feel terribly happy about another age group arbitrarily being given a tax break. you can pick individuals from any disadvantaged group who may not have the disadvantages common to that group but that does not imply that the disadvantages for the group at large do not exist in the first place. then you are giving advantages to everybody in that group... you did that already with older people when you hand out the free tv licence, winter fuel allowance, and bus passes to people who are elderly and very rich. i have often said that i do not understand why we need these pension benefits which are tax—free, for example. roll them into the state pension and tax them. they are actually part of the state pension, they are political gimmicks added on to get political brownie points at different stages.

coming through what you have just said, is there a resentment that you feel when you look at the older generation saying we are never going to be in that place? i do not think the resentment is as much towards the older generation are large, it isn't like my parents and my grandmothers are not aware of the fact that they have been privileged in certain ways through their relative position in the housing market, for example. it weighs on them that it will affect their children down the line. my resentment comes far more to the parties who have done things for short—term electoral gain, particularly the conservative party appealing to the older generation, with no particular interest in what this would do, kicking the can down the road for another five years so we can say this country hasn't built enough houses in 35 years rather than 30 years. it was labour who introduced the winter fuel payments, successive governments have tried to do gimmicks. a tax break would be a gimmick now. but you have to recognise that it is the conservatives who are struggling to bring people on board, or to even get a look on with young people who think it is a party worth voting for.

that's why i think we need to take seriously the problem of student debt and the issue of unaffordable housing. that issue will not be solved by giving tax breaks. should older people contribute to student debt? should they say that they want the next generation of doctors and public sector workers well educated and coming into our system to look after us. to be fair, better off older people are already contributing a significant proportion of tax revenues across the piece. the tax system already... i would love for these larger scale changes to come into play, but that isn't what is being proposed by the government in any way. we aren't sure what is being proposed! there seems to be a lot of sticking plasters on your thigh to deal with the fact that your arm has been chopped off. is the fundamental problem that we are too optimistic that they will be fine

when they become old, or we do not... certainly, i think with any kind of inequality, whenever the deck is stacked, we assume a question of priorities has prevented outcomes from being identical. so you will never get on the property ladder but you will spend £3 on your coffee, mate, that's because you bought the £3 houses! i think there's a patronising view of us being generally obsessed with avocados. i think it is very unhealthy to have an intergenerational strife, if you like. we are a society, we should live together and support each other. i think there's a significant issue for younger people in terms of housing and house pricing has pushed up rents, but it extends to all age groups. i want to simplify and not use age as a discriminator. we are out of time, but thank you to both of you for coming in.

the us army sergeant bowe bergdahl has pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehaviour at a court martial hearing in north carolina. bergdahl was accused of endangering fellow soldiers who searched for him after he walked away from his combat outpost in afghanistan and was captured by the taliban. that was in 2009. he spent five years in captivity and was released under barack obama as a prisoner exchange swap. film—maker sean langan was capured by the same group. he got to know him well. and he secured the first recorded interview with bergdal. every day, basically. at some point in time i would tell myself that you are not making it out of this. you are a dead man. when they first brought me into the room, he sat me down and looked at me and said in two days, we are going to kill you. you know, and ijust sat there. 0r...

yeah, ijust sat there. you could be facing five years in prison. yeah, at least they had the decency of saying i'm going to cut your head off. but here, it's that guy who you just passed in the hallway with the paperwork, that he just had you sign, he could easily be the person, or be representing the people who are going to make sure that you spend the rest of your... years in prison. they will make sure that they hit you with everything that they can. well, sean langanjoins me now. he is a complicated fellow. we got that sense. many things to many people. traitor to some, hero to others. delusional. you looked him in the eye, what sense did you get? it is a difficult story. three years, we have seen a story

presented in the us media which bears little resemblance to the trial and the facts. but when i looked at bowe bergdahl, the psychologists and the military investigators described him as having an overblown sense of capabilities when he walked off and got captured, and delusional. but the same individual endured five years of torture, being spread—eagled to his bed and tortured by the taliban. in captivity, he kept escaping and in his mind, he was being a patriot soldier. why did he walk away from that post in the first place? did you get to the bottom of that? it is one of those strange... sometimes you have a mystery novel and there a moment of clarity where you can say what happened. in his mind, there is conflict but his defence, which the military investigator believed, he was so sure that his command was endangering the lives of his fellow soldiers that he had to take drastic action.

the irony, and the great tragedy, is that his answer to this problem was to walk off his base, to make a complaint. in doing so, he endangered the lives of thousands of soldiers looking for him. and lives were lost? well, the media story and donald trump, more than 60 times on the campaign trail, he said that six soldiers were killed looking for bergdahl. trump said that he should be shot, and would have been shot years ago but the pentagon has said that there is no link between the six soldiers that we have heard over three years were killed looking for bergdahl. there were killed in a province fighting a war. what is beyond dispute is that soldiers were injured looking for him. air support was taken from other parts of afghanistan in the search. but the six killed is a media allegation. a lot of it seems to come back

to the trial by media. he has pleaded guilty today. was your worry that he had already become a political football? it's not my worry. now, i'm a former hostage. i was very aware that i did not want to be too close. as a journalist, you are aware that if i found out something that could condemn him in the court, a real court of law, that's what you do as a journalist. i'm not here to defend him because i am a former hostage. it's the experts that i interviewed, the us intelligence, the people who debriefed him, that many of the allegations are incorrect and what they have said, without doubt, here is the great irony. that the us intelligence experts looked at the allegations in american media, without mentioning which networks, they could trace the sources of the allegations in america about this american soldier being a traitor.

that was linked back to taliban disinformation. you have a greek tragedy of an american soldier being accused of being un—american by american media, and yet that is enemy propaganda. you seem detached as the film—maker, that you were captured by the taliban yourself. how do you think you emerged from this? do you feel like a different person, do you have a clarity? i am only laughing because it has taken three years to make this film and it has been a difficult process. it was very difficult. i waited three years to get the interview with sergeant bergdahl. thousands of american journalists were trying to get it. as i entered into this tool shed in texas near his base to do this interview, i suddenly thought, i don't want to go into this tool shed. coming face to face with a fellow hostage was like going back into that cell.

i only spent four months in a dark cell being interrogated by the taliban. he spent five years. but it is not something that you want to relive. sean langan, thank you for coming in. and you can watch sean's full documentary on bowe bergdahl at 9pm on bbc four on tuesday 31st. the government—commissioned inquiry into child sexual abuse is investigating the abuse of children in places, such as the anglican and catholic churches, in local authority care homes and on the internet. but 12 months ago, the inquiry itself was in the news. back then, newsnight revealed that it had been made aware of a disclosure of an alleged sexual assault at the enquiry involving ben emmerson qc, then its most senior lawyer. he has always denied any wrongdoing. our broadcast prompted

a series of reports. mps were very critical of the enquiry, while a qc appointed by the enquiry said the way that they handled it was essentially fine. and, ben emmerson‘s legal chambers matrix investigated too. they appointed a former director of public prosecutions called sir david calvert—smith. last december, we were told he had concluded, without hesitation, that there had been no sexual assault or sexual harassment by ben emmerson. jake morris is here with further news. emily, things would have been allowed to live there were not for the fact that it seems that there were certain people in matrix who were quite unhappy about the report you spoken about. it seems they made their feelings clear and the management committee responded by commissioning yet another report. this was to be essentially a review into that original report. it was to be led by a woman called dame laura cox, a recently retired high courtjudge. this morning, the times newspaper reported that dame laura cox's

review essentially had criticisms that were quite significant of that original report by sir david calvert—smith. it's my understanding that she did not investigate or make any findings with regard to whether there had been a sexual assault, or sexual harassment. but she took issue with the entire legal basis on which the original report said there had been no assault, and there had been no harassment. now, ben emmerson has not said anything today, and as you say, he has always denied wrongdoing. have you heard from matrix? what do they say? very little, having had this report for some time, they have refused to answer questions about its contents or even acknowledging that it exists. but if they had their way, the press statement that they issued in december last year, issuing the central finding of that initial report, that there was no assault or harassment would have been allowed to sit unchallenged on the public

record for good, despite the fact that matrix would have done a review that they themselves commissioned and knew that it had significant criticisms of that report. matrix is a firm renowned for fighting high profile human rights cases. it says on its website that it is a place where diversity and accessibility are widely championed and outdated practice is challenged. over the course of covering this story, a number of people i have spoken to will take issue with that sentiment. thank you. jake morris there. one of the big hits of the film festivals this year has been mudbound, an epic drama set in 1940s america which shows two families battling with questions of race, poverty and patriotism. the director dee rees approached the big movie houses but it was netflix that picked it up and will stream in november. the film stars carey mulligan, and mary] blige — seen here saying goodbye to her son, ronsel, as he heads off to war. i spoke to dee rees and mary] blige

to ask what this intimate period portrait of two families could show us about america in 2017. mary, if there was one thought, or one message that you wanted audiences to take away from this film, what would it be? what is the most important thing for you? i would say this idea of interconnectedness, how we are all interconnected to each other into time, like our past is our present is our future, then our stories are all, even though we are each a thread, they are all woven together. so... mary, what would you say in terms of the message that you want people to take away from this? exactly what dee said, but i would say it like we are in this together, but the quicker and at the end of the day, love has no colour. love is the saviour. love is the angel. you know, it's not going to come in one shot but it is going to save the day.

originally, this film had difficulty getting distributed. it seems to be addressing exactly the sort of issues that you raise in the film. yeah, i think because this was such a huge ensemble cast, and it's risky material in a way, the thing about netflix is that they are not reductive or comparative like other studios. they didn'tjust put this in, like, a bucket. they didn't even call it a "race film". they saw it as a film about family, a film about life, about these two family stuck together. so by not being reductive and by not compressing it, they were able to see the universality, the expa nsiveness of it. and for you, mary, playing florence was a big, physical change for you, right? just talk us through what you left behind. well, i had to leave maryj blige behind, which was beautiful, and a blessing for mary] blige. once i committed to florence, it started healing a lot of me that i didn't know was still broken. you know, once you see

how florence lives, it's like, wow. i didn't know that i was so vain. we write that. i don't want you working for them. i won't be working for them, i'd be working for us. so who's idea was no make up... laughter you've resisted it? dee because my nails are actually this long, so i had to cut my nails off! and it was like, well, so florence doesn't wear lashes? you know. you've got to have lashes! i had to take away lashes, so you're trying to sneak things in and dee is like, get those nails off! they look manufactured! so yeah, it was all dee that said no perm, you know, no wigs. but it was you that was willing to do that, though. most actresses wouldn't be willing to do that. i was willing to do it with dee, because i knew that she sees better than we see, so i trusted dee , and i said that we would just go for it.

something great is going to come out of this. when i watched it, ifelt that the film was asking questions about patriotism, colour, poverty, about the kkk, about family... it's a period film, and yet these are the conversations being had right now, across modern—day america. right. exactly. yeah, ithink also, you know, i think all art kind of comments on the timing in which it is made. even though this film is set in 1940, it could have been set in 2040. dee, towards the end of the film, there is that really, unflinchingly brutal portrayal of the kkk. i wondered what your sense of that was. why did you choose to show it so nakedly? was it you fear that it has been forgotten? or do we think that it is becoming relevant again? what was your sense with that? this has always been relevant. like a lynching isn't something that necessarily stopped, i think it is something that has changed forms, its unreported or not

called the same thing. as a country, we are the same as we have always been. i think we are just now seeing... you know, what's crazy about when we did that scene, that same day someone sent me something over the internet and showed me a lynching that took place recently. so those tears came from like, are you kidding me? seriously? so when you look at the american society that you portray there, and the one that we are in now, your sense is that things haven't changed that much? no, ithink, you know, in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, it affected the signs over the water fountains came down. so this kind of formalised over segregation discontinued but this covert segregation continued. and that hasn't changed. and the film was shot before president trump came to power. do you think his presidency is allowing more of this sense of unease and grievance to be aired now? i think it has emboldened

the attitudes that were already there. i think this attitude has never died, quite. ijust think people have just stopped saying it out loud. i think trump has allowed people to now say them out loud again, and feel justified. and, you know, create a false victim narrative. you follow the take a knee protest, obviously the nfl. is your sense there that that was something that athletes of colour had to do on their own, or make their own, or was that something that white athletes should have joined in with? i think anybody who believes in the ideals, who believes that things should be equal for everybody should participate. i don't think it is necessarily any one person's burden, like we as a nation, if we are going to move forward, everybody has to take that stand. and when you were growing up, mary, did you think in 2017 we would be still talking about a movement called black lives matter? umm...

no. i didn't think so. i thought that things would change. i thought that things had changed, but when i saw president obama... when he was elected, that day, i saw a separation. they showed people over here cheering, and they showed another side that was very pissed off. that was the first time i saw that — wow, this is really still happening. it's only been revealed now, before a long time, you know, iwas like... well, like every child in school thinks it'll change, the little girl thinks it'll get better and better. and that day, i was like, wow, i can't believe that my subconscious thoughts are coming into promotion, to the front. i thought it would, but here we are. it is sad. dee, do you have a last thought on that? ijust think the issue of race, first of all i think that race is a construct, it's not real, it's an economic construct. but we've all invested in this fiction. i think it's become pathological in our country. people aren't even aware of it, and that's why, with mudbound, i want to go back to the idea of inheritance because when you are aware of ideas that you have been

given, of thoughts that you've been given, of attitudes you have been given, then you have a chance to try to change those. but when you are not acknowledging your inheritance, then you're not dealing with the things that you are doing subconsciously, and you are not dealing with the things that you are passing on to perpetuate these problems. yeah, and there was little things that happened to me, you know, in the music business that made me like, are we really still dealing with this? i would ask my publicist, you know, can i get this cover, or that cover? they would come back and say things like know, because you are black. i was like, are you serious? —— no, because you're black. this magazine won't allow me to be on a cover because i am black? there's always been little things that made me be like 0k, that cannot be true. the world will change, but like i said, when i saw president obama elected i was like oh, this is really happening. they are really saying this. mary, this could be a really extraordinary moment for a film.

netflix could be up for an oscar, the first black female director could be up for an oscar. there's a lot of noise around this already. right. i'm excited, i'm so grateful that dee called on me. i'm so happy that i'm part of something that could even change... you know, the world. change how we see everything. this is a huge vessel, and i'm just happy that i'm part of it. very grateful. very thankful. very than let's go through the front pages of tomorrow's papers. let's go through the front pages of tomorrow's papers. the guardian has the death of the journalist who led the panama papers investigation into corruption in malta. she was called the one woman wikileaks. her block is a thorn in the side of both the establishment and underworld figures in malta. she was killed by a car bomb near her home. she died when her peugeot 108 was destroyed by a powerful explosive device. her recent revelations pointed the finger at malta's prime minister

and two of his closest aides. they have a picture of storm ophelia on the front there, hitting south wales as it comes off the ireland. the daily telegraph has the picture of boris and the rowing boat. ham oped's tax on age budget. that question of whether tax breaks should be for the young. and the times has a splash about a 15—year limit on peerages. that the lords will serve fixed terms in a plan to curb the numbers. there are around 800 member in the lords. that's it for tonight. evan is here tomorrow. until then, have a very good evening. a dramatic day for our friends in

ireland with current —— hurricane ophelia ringing the winds to the coast. even here in the uk we had winds of 290 mph and the storm is still barrelling across the uk. , northern ireland, the south—west of scotland. the storm is here full but the worst of the winds are blowing through the irish sea affecting coastal areas and we have many hours more of gale force winds before finally things die down. the worst of the winds have died down but we could have some nasty conditions through the lowlands of scotland, the north—east of england, during the north—east of england, during the course of tomorrow morning's rush—hour. still potential for disruption to travel and some of the

gust of wind could be damaging to trees and buildings. this is what the weather looks like it early hours of tuesday morning around five o'clock, still some rain. and that further south, quieter with hardly any wind. fora further south, quieter with hardly any wind. for a time, the rush—hour, still some gale force winds that by the time we get around midday, finally the remnants of that storm pulling out across the north sea in the direction of norway, bringing gusty winds and rains there. at the winds will die down and hardly any winds will die down and hardly any wind at all through the afternoon across many parts of the uk. notice some rain getting into south—western parts of the uk for tomorrow afternoon. through the course of wednesday, we are expecting a little bit more rain to cross the country. a spell of wet weather across northern england during the course of the afternoon and also spots of rain around wales. it will seem all for most of the week with temperatures around 18 in london.

both to seasonal norm in scotland at around 12 celsius. the sunrise this week, still stormy for a time tomorrow morning and quieter mid week. it looks as though, come the weekend, we could have more stormy weather on the way. speech in. it's not over. before we go, briefly, some of pictures from today. some spectacular orange skies. this is one from suffolk. this was a result of the particles from the wildfires raging across portugal and spain. here is one i actually took earlier run which is in what we call the horseshoe just outside the bbc. that's it. if you are in northern britain tonight or travelling tomorrow morning, to take care, the weather will improve by tomorrow lunchtime. i'm rico hizon in singapore, the headlines —

thousands of civilians flee the iraqi city of kirkuk, after the iraqi army seize control from kurdish forces. well, we've suddenly had to pull back, there was a sustained outburst of gunfire at the position up ahead. we can't be sure where it came from. we get an insider's take as the most powerful communist party in the world gets ready to hold its congress in beijing. i'm babita sharma in london. also in the programme. watching over the waves, shark—detecting drones take to the skies in australia to make surfing safer. and could a cycling accident put the brakes on ed sheeran‘s upcoming asia concert dates? the star warns his fans some shows could be affected.