men are apparently, generously still leaving the bigger share to women. but are fathers secretly just dying to give up the office for the nappy? for me, it's really a family time, quality time, you know. so, it's very good. i love it, actually. yeah. we'll ask if men really think it's so great, why aren't more doing it? hello. the controversial political data intelligence firm cambridge analytica has suspended its chief executive. more on that soon. but facebook is not having a great week either. it's the biggest corporate crisis since volkswagen's diesel deceit. that inaugurated a significant decline in diesel sales, does this mark the same for facebook or even other tech giants? in the us, the federal trade

commission is reported to be investigating. here, the information commissioner's office said it's applying for a warrant get access to cambridge analytica; and told facebook to drop its own audit of the controversial political data intelligence firm. it was a sign that the authorities here — as elsewhere — are not going to let facebook act as though this is a little local difficulty, that can be dealt with via an in—house memo telling people to wash the coffee cups. authorities across the west have are shocked at the way facebook let app developers harvest data, and then break all the rules by passing it onto others. and not tell anyone when they discovered rules had been broken. how should we describe facebook‘s attitude to the date of its users at the time cambridge analytica had taken possession of so much of it? permissive? certainly — that in fact was the goal. app developers could make better apps for use on facebook if they could get the data. careless ? well, yes. at that time apps didn'tjust hoover up the user's data but could access the user's friends.

that did stop in 2015. is the fact we might have given consent a defence for facebook? i think legally it is possible that you might have given facebook permission to basically do whatever they want with that data but i would point out the fact that facebook actually removed some of these access points called apis around 2014, and mark zuckerberg went on stage and said people were surprised this happened. that i'm friends with you and now your data gets siphoned off because i use an app surprises you. it is kind of clear that the legal consent doesn't really capture the essence of how people feel about this. what's clear is that the cambridge analytica affair has hit a nerve, igniting an international indignation at the power of the company. one german court found facebook‘s default consent settings breached consumer law. the british and americans are on the case as well. the company faces potential punishment and, crucially, a threat to pieces of its business model.

so what's been happening up until now is the lax control from facebook has allowed the advertisers to really focus their advertising, to really make it specific to users by accessing the data that perhaps under a controlled environment they wouldn't necessarily have access to. i think with the increased regulation, we're going to see an ending or certainly a much stricter control of that, which will impact the amount that advertisers are going to be able to access information, and therefore the amount they are going to be able to centre their advertising. that is certainly going to make facebook a little less attractive for advertisers. let's be fair, there is no direct evidence as yet that cambridge analytica's use of facebook data actually had any very big effect. of course, cambridge analytica would love you to believe it has magical powers of persuasion,

as indeed do most of its vocal critics, but does it? just yesterday we learned the conservative party has spent four times more on facebook than the labour party in the run—up to last year's collection. the conservatives spend millions on the best political and market research consultants but i think it is fair to say, to put it charitably, its campaign was not regarded as among the best in british election history. it was a lesson in how the biggest brains don't always get what they want. certainly, if they are indeed these svengali like super geniuses who can make people believe things just by targeted facebook advertising, then it kind of raises this question, why haven't we seen that technique being used by other people? particularly by people who sell stuff online all year round rather than trying to market an election every four years? how is it amazon is not trying to find your big five personality traits and do custom advertising to you in order to sell you a dishwasher? but the damage is done,

a corner has been turned, data is being taken more seriously, the company is being taken as less trustworthy. i don't know whether cambridge analytica had a significant affect on the trump election. i don't know if they had a significant effect on brexit. i do know that the systems that have been developed by facebook give this capability make this something that is possible to happen in the future, and that is i think what is more important. not the specific event butjust happened but what the implications are for our democracy in the future, because the abilities of these things will only get better. big data analysis is getting more refined. the amount of information there is getting greater, so it means the likelihood of being able to affect things is increasing. mark zuckerberg has been strangely quiet on the whole affair. it's not as though data was some obscure data area of law even in 2015 and data was facebook‘s

business after all. but it feels like the company is leaving its teen years now and being expected to take responsibility like an adult. that is the facebook side of it. tonight, more revelations — this time regarding the role cambridge analytica claims to have played in donald trump's election as us president. chris cook is with me. bring us up to date on developments. we have to be clear, because of channel 4 news's excellent reporting, that we know they had an undercover reporter who talked to various cambridge analytica executives who claimed to have had a critical effect on the election of donald trump, to have the power to spread anonymously, the memes and news stories. they also talked about, talked in a way that made some people draw the conclusion there had been collusion between the trump campaign and a supposedly independent politcal action group, which is not allowed under us law. cambridge analytica denies all these things that their own executive have said and that is why they suspended their chief executive this evening.

let's talk about the british investigation, maybe not the one facebook is most terrified of, because the american side is probably a bigger dealfor them. the information commissioner is on the case, how effective will that be? the thing to know about the information commissioner is it is not the world's most frightening regulator at all. fundamentally as two functions. it does data protection, which is why we are talking about it tonight and freedom of information. these are two things that are both real hassles the government. so there is quite a strong incentive for central government not to give it too much money because if they do they know it will come straight for them. think of all the data that nhs and schools and local authorities hold, as well as the hassle and hatred in whitehall for freedom of information. there really is no game for them in giving it a lot of money. so even where it has sufficient

powers, and it has quite good powers and data protection, it doesn't have the bandwidth or capacity to really take on big cases and monthly it is a real scaredy—cat when it comes to taking on big things. we will see what it does. thank you. earlier i spoke to senatorjohn kennedy. he is the republican senator for louisiana and serves on the senatejudiciary committee — a committee that facebook officials will give evidence to tomorrow. i started by asking whether it was cambridge analytica that delivered president trump the election. well, you can't quantify it. i mean, you can't really say the president of the united states became president of the united states or a senator became a senator because of one particular factor. campaigns are not like that. there's a lot going on. people have a multitude of reasons for voting as they do. and ijust don't think that you can... i mean, i have had consultants pitch me all

the time in campaigns saying you know, we have won this election for this candidate. we have won it for that candidate. and, you know, you smile politely, but it doesn't work that way. there's no way to quantify or evaluate what they are saying. your question is can they have an impact? sure, they can have an impact. how measurable it is is another issue. hillary clinton would say it was such a fine election, so narrow, and impact means that they changed the course of history. they got donald trump elected. and that is a big thing. i don't agree with that. i'm not prepared to say that. i don't think anybody can say that. do i personally believe that cambridge analytica elected donald trump through their activities?

no. i don't. do i believe that russia influenced the outcome of the election? influenced, perhaps. determined? that's a whole different story. ok, let's talk about facebook, which is obviously a much bigger company and a more important global player than cambridge analytica. a lot of people are just saying, look uninstall facebook if you don't want your data passed around like that, just get rid of it. the company has lost trust and people should uninstall it. do you think that is a piece of consumer advice you would give? well, certainly transparency is something we need to talk about. but before we look for remedies, we have to understand the problem. and here's the problem. facebook is an extraordinary company. but it is no longer a company. it is a country. it is huge. it is breathtakingly powerful. data is the new oil. and facebook‘s behaviour leaves something to be desired. i mean, some of their recent behaviour is getting into the foothills of creepy. i don't want to see the united states congress just start regulating, i would prefer to have first a frank and candid discussion with the social media ceos at the table with us, in front of god and country and the american public. and anybody else wants to watch, and let us talk frankly

about these issues. we tried it once before. in the judiciary committee. facebook and the other social media companies sent their lawyers. i don't know what they paid their lawyers. but they did theirjob because they didn't say a damn thing. they dodged, they weaved, they stalled, they re—stalled, but they would not confront the issue. sorry to interrupt you, but tomorrow facebook officials say they're going to brief the senate and house judiciary committees with the latest. again, i don't expect it is going to be mark zuckerberg who's going to come talking to you. how are you going to make something different next time so it isn'tjust

again you listening to a bunch of lawyers saying we can't answer that question? well i don't have the authority to make anybody come to the judiciary. but our chairman does. we have subpoena power. i would refer not to see us get to that point. i don't even know if the chairman is willing to have a hearing. i certainly hope he does. we have had one hearing, we need to have another. and i would very respectfully and politely but firmly, suggest to mr zuckerberg that he needs to come to talk to us. and subpoena him if he doesn't accept the invitation? we're not there yet. we're not even to the subpoena stage. let's give him the benefit of the doubt and ask him to come politely. i mean, he is a smart guy, obviously. he invented facebook. my aim in all this is not to trash facebook. i think facebook has

done wonderful things. it has brought a lot of people together and helped spread democracy. it was critical in the arab spring in terms of people being able to communicate with each other. in many ways it brings us closer together. but also in other ways it brings us further apart. can ijust ask one last one. you are talking about this as a facebook problem. is that your view or do you think this is a bigger, tech giant problem? i think it is bigger. i'm talking about facebook because the cambridge analytica issue had to do with facebook. but you can make the same argument for twitter, google, the other social media companies. i mean, let me say it again. i'm proud of them, they are american companies. but they're not american companies, they're not even companies any more. they are countries. they are breathtakingly powerful. they know more about me than me. they know more about you than you.

and we need to talk about the socio—, economic and cultural problems that their size presents. and the american people, i don't know about the folks in the uk, but the american people expect us to address these issues and by god, plan on doing that. we can do it the hard way or the easy way. senatorjohn kennedy, thanks very much. thanks for talking to us. facebook has not succeeded in knocking russia off the news. it is only 16 days since the nerve gas attack on the skripals, but today saw the 23 russian embassy staff leave the country. spies, diplomats — call them whatever you want. today, in front of the long lenses of the gathered press, the russians and their families climbed onto a bus,

taken off to stansted airport, and were basically booted out of the country and taken back to moscow. if they were hoping to creep out the back door of the country without being noticed, they failed. as the russian state owned ilyushin aircraft headed home, the british government said they had no plans for further sanctions — for now. mark urban is with me. the other development is the opcw have started the deliberations. they are the international watchdog. they are now in the uk, more of them coming and their director—general said at least three weeks. they are going to verify the porton down scientists diagnosis that this was a new generation russian nerve agent. whether they are going to have the exact forensic fix on it as having come from a russian factory is a different matter. it may not resolve the argument one way or the other.

these russian diplomat left today. any more? well the national security council meeting today, we thought there might be a task force on going after russian money and that kind of thing but apparently not even that. maybe you get the sense that perhaps we feel the diplomatic advantage is with us. today donald trump congratulated president putin on his election victory. and you look at these 23 and you see the british do not want to get into any further tit—for—tat. i understand the 23 is not all of them. it was said in the british statement that it was undeclared. so we're not sure of the numbers but some appear to have stayed. you look at the expulsion

of the brits from moscow, i can tell you 23 is more than that of intelligence people the brits had in russia. so they do not want to get into any further tit—for—tat and that also is a measure of how the diplomatic advantage might not still be with the uk in this. now, i hesitated to call the russians that were sent home today "spies", despite the fact others have, not just because it is there is perhaps no clear line that defines a spy at all. intelligence gathering is done by many who are not living under diplomatic cover. and crucially, the russian state has long been known to make use of people who aren't even russians. in the twilight zone of spying and networking, john sweeney has been looking at how this works, focusing on one mysterious

professor, said to be a london—based conduit between president trump and the russians. highgate cemetery has always been a place of intrigue for russians. the tomb of karl marx stands sentinel over those of other socialists dignitaries. and this is also the resting place of former kgb officer alexander litvinenko, believed to have been poisoned by russian spies. a reminder, as if one were needed this week, that cold war espionage is alive and well. there's an old kgb handbook which details the tricks russian intelligence got up to in the bad old days of the cold war. the gossip is these techniques are still very much in use. lessson one; when targeting the enemy, don't use a russian if you can find someone from a third country who will do your dirty

work for you. this is a strange tale of the connections between three men; the first maltese, the second russian, the third german. we begin with the links between the russian state and the election campaign of a certain american reality tv star. during the american election, trump advisors were offered e—mails from inside hillary clinton's campaign — e—mails hacked by russian spies. the fbi has launched a major investigation. this is trump advisor george papadopoulos. he pleaded guilty to making false statements about contacts he'd had with the russian government. and papadopoulos admitted to the fbi that a mystery maltese professor was the go—between between him and the russians.

the russians will use third country nationals as really mostly access agents, to use the proper term, meaning they're out there spotting and assessing for targets for russian intelligence. particularly people who might not want to talk to a russian, would be put off by talking to a russian for security 01’ personal reasons. someone who's a third country national can be a lot better person to be the face of russian intelligence. papadopoulos admitted to the fbi the professor told him that the russians possessed dirt on hillary clinton in the form of thousands of e—mails. that he wanted to introduce papadopoulos to a contact and that his contacts were in the russian ministry of foreign affairs. the maltese professor was this man, joseph mifsud. he was known as a diplomat but professor mifsud's career had began as an academic here in valletta, at the university of malta. he resigned in 2007 under something of a cloud. he then moved through a series

of academic institutions, touting his expertise in diplomacy, presenting as an ambassador, but this is not true. maltese journalistjurgen balzan has checked out the facts. there's no evidence of him, of mifsud being an ambassador or deployed in some maltese foreign ministry office abroad. the man who never was an ambassador moved to the london academy of diplomacy in 2013; an obscure outfit whose degrees were awarded by the university of east anglia and the university of stirling. here he is with a russian ambassador, a real one, that is. so why would a minor academic working in british universities be of interest to the russians? he is a very typical kind of character in this world,

on the fringes of academia, think—tankery and governments. he looks nonthreatening, he's a hanger on, he's at all the parties. he's a wannabe, not a real player. in a strange way, that can actually help the russians because again, the threat perception of the maltese, drops considerably. he is maltese which is not associated a lot with threats of any kind, frankly, he can get along in a lot of places. mifsud had a fiance based in ukraine according to buzzfeed. the woman says she hasn't seen or heard of the professor for months, but she's left holding the baby. weeks ago she gave birth to their daughter. he got about a bit for business too. we've tracked some of the movements of our humble professor. in london, he met borisjohnson and junior minister tobias ellwood. at the university in rome, he worked with two former italian foreign ministers.

in riyadh, he was at the think tank run by former head of saudi intelligence, prince turki al—faisal. a source said he'd regularly visited moscow. none of this, of course, is evidence of him being a russian asset. but there's no denying the benefits of networking. here's another nugget from that old kgb handbook. international conferences and seminars are great for recruiting. stuffed with clever academics, scientists and business people, they are the perfect place to, quote, get information. and influence foreigners. in 2016, the professor was in moscow for a kremlin—backed valdai conference. to his left is ivan timofeev, who works at a think tank linked to the russian ministry of foreign affairs.

democracy is such a political regime. which is most vulnerable in comparison with every other kind... the washington post says it is aware of e—mails suggesting mifsud put the trump team in contact with timofeev. also at the valdai conference we meet german—born swiss—based multimillionaire dr stephan roh. stephan roh, on the left, is the third man. he's a lawyer with close links to professor mifsud. stephan and his russian born wife 0lga have homes in switzerland, monaco, london, and hong kong. and then there's this castle in scotland, and buying it made stephan and 0lga the baron and baroness of inchdrewer. in 2014 stephan roh became a visiting lecturer at the london academy of diplomacy. he buys the private university

in rome where mifsud is part of the management. and mifsud becomes a consultant at roh's legal firm. in a way we always were in my family very achievements oriented. here is 0lga roh, on the left, in fox's reality tv show, meet the russians. she's extraordinarily well connected, running an upmarket dress company in london's mayfair. among her customers, britain's prime minister. here's theresa may meeting the queen, in an 0lga roh coat. most intriguing are stephan‘s business interests, which appear extensive. newsnight can reveal the story of one. in the autumn 2005 i received this phone call from a dr stephan roh showing interest in the company and explained very briefly

that he was involved or intended to be involved with some technology transferfrom russia to europe. and he would like to do this through my company. drjohn harbottle is a british nuclear scientist who ran a nuclear consultancy, severnvale nuclear services ltd. he specialised in the effects of radiation on fuel materials in reactors in britain, france and the united states. so what did dr roh want from him? he explained that he would like to acquire my company but he wanted to retain my services on the technical side because he was a lawyer and had no technical background at all. dr roh bought the nuclear consultancy, then invited dr harbottle on an all expenses paid trip to a conference, in moscow. but the nuclear scientist was alert to the danger that visitors to moscow can be targeted, or even honey—trapped, into compromising situations.

i smelt a rat, you know. it didn't sound as if it rang true. and i decided that i wasn't going to go to this meeting. so dr harbottle declined to go. shortly afterwards, he was fired. under dr harbottle, the company's turnover had been £42,000 a year. within three years, severnvale nuclear was turning over more than $43 million a year under stephan roh, with just two employees. 0n the face of it, it could be a legitimate business, highly successful in a short space of time. however, my concerns are that it's only got two employees, neither of which are experts in the field of a consultancy. so it could be money—laundering. up from that, it could be a way of obtaining nuclear capability for the russian energy sector within russia, it needs improvement. dr roh didn't respond to repeated attempts to contact him.

the case of stephan roh and severnvale nuclear and ofjoseph mifsud and team hillary's e—mails raises big questions about these types of international characters and their links to the russian state. the essential tradecraft used by russian intelligence today is very similar to that used in the cold war, indeed it's overwhelmingly similar. so you can draw lines from the late kgb to the present day with a lot of ease and accuracy. professor mifsud too did not respond to newsnight‘s attempts to contact him. but has always denied that he is a spy. when approached by italian newspaper la repubblica, he said, "secret agent? i never got a penny from the russians. my conscience is clean. all i've done is to foster relationships between official and nonofficial sources." three years ago, the government

introduced shared parental leave, which gave couples the option of splitting 50 weeks of leave entitlement between mother and father. a charter for new dads to take more responsibility for rearing baby. but some old habits have persisted. take up of the shared leave scheme is very low — about 3% of eligible couples. the vast majority of couples are sticking to the traditional leave system — maternity, with a side of paternity. the subject has been analysed by the house of commons women and equalities committee — we'll discuss it shortly, but we went to luton to speak to parents about how they feel about their roles in parenting... we are equal parents. it shouldn't be the mother being at home looking after the homestead all the time. getting time off from work, spending time with the kids at easter holidays etc, etc,

so any more time with the kids is a better thing. two weeks — it's not enough. a man has every right to spend time with their child as much as a woman does. two weeks, it's not enough. you can't bond with a baby in two weeks. it means that we get a little bit of a break, as well, and for a dad to actually be able to spend time with their child, it's one of the most amazing things there is. it's a very precious thing, actually. so, as you can see, i've brought my two children and my foster child as well, so we are having really quality time over here. i do know of families where the father's had to go but even a week, two weeks after the birth, it's such a process for the woman to go through, that they need time, that time to physically recover and have that support. so for the dad to be able to take some of that load would mean a lot forthem, and improve rates of things like postnatal depression. i've got three kids myself,

so i got two weeks off, you know, it wasn't much time at all. clearly times have definitely changed, you know, women are no longer at home any more, they're working full—time jobs, looking after kids. dads do the same thing, so times have definitely changed. with me here is director of the think tank demos polly mackenzie, stay at home dad and bloggerjohn adams, and kate andrews from the institute of economic affairs. very good evening to you all. john, you are a stay at home dad. you weren't there for paternity as such, is that right? not for shared parental leave. when my first daughter was born i took a month off work to stay home with my wife and i was needed at home. she had a very hard birth, i had to be there to keep the family running. when my wife gave birth the second time, the birth was straightforward but she was re—hospitalised afterwards, very high blood pressure and again i had to take a month off so i could be at home and keep the family running.

how old are your children now? nine and five. what is your day? chuckles my day these days involves getting up, getting the children ready, doing the school run and then when they are actually at school i do a little bit of freelance, and a bit of money, then back to school, picked this keeps up, sort out after—school clubs. today i had to host a play date after school. are there any other stay at home dads? when you go to the school gates are they all mothers are some other guys? no other men in my position, no. you do see a lot of men on the school run these days but you do not see them in the playground like me, twice a day. i wonder whether, polly, we put too much emphasis on the very first year. the mother has an important role denim breast—feeding and maybe we should put more weight and the later years and dads would be more useful to be around?

one of the things you can do with shared parental leave is that six months of mum attempt then mum can go back to work and dad can take the second six months. i think it would be great if more people did that. but there is a huge amount of work byjohn is talking about that comes with parenting later on, which is the child is sick and you have to pick them up for the nursery has closed and is the inset day or a snow day. by default, it tends to be the mum that picks that up, just as it is the daughter who picks up care for elderly parents, so all of that kind of eats into the number of hours that a woman tends to work and that eats into the whole earnings profile women having comparison with men, which is how we have ended up with the situation where women are 51% of the population but take the third of wages. you are getting straight back to the gender pay gap and all those issues. is it a problem, kate? that men and women are not splitting

paternity in the wake policymakers are nudging them to? it is only a problem if they are not able to do so, if the policies and flexible enough and individuals, choices and partners can't have that conversation between themselves. it is important to increase paternity pay. it might be a cost to the taxpayer but it might be something we want to prioritise. it shouldn't affect small businesses because they can reclaim that money from the state. i much more concerned with the government tries to bringing in some intrusive policy to hit its own targets, despite what people might be telling us. in that respect, the policies proposed today by forced dad leave, forcing them to take time off, threaten their benefits and the time they can take off if men don't take a certain proportion is deeply concerning to me. i don't think it's a liberal, i don't think it is flexible or represents what couples want. you basically think it is about choice and as long as they are freely choosing it doesn't matter if there is some inequality or some difference in the way people choose? we want to make sure there is equality in terms of being able to take it, but of outcome is absolutely fine. of course, as a point of principle that is really compelling but then

you have the reality, which is when a mum says to her own employer, i want to take time off work it's now brilliantly really normal and 0k and lots of employers have on ramps and off ramps to help people back. but if the dad says i want to take six months or even three months or even six weeks, it's kind of, people know they have legal obligations and feel a bit awkward but it is not normal lives. and actually a really compelling thing about a daddy month is it helps to have that conversation. i think lots of men, i would love to know whatjohn biggs, don't feel empowered to have that conversation with their employer. they would love to do it but they feel it's not what dads do. is that correct? i think it is right. i would disagree with kate, i don't think it's a case of taking

benefits away from people, they take it or don't. this issue of stand—alone leave, it would basically put us all on a level playing field, i think. the crucial point here is it would enable men to get involved with their children from day one and if you bond with your child from day one there is reams of evidence and involved father from the start they can evolve with their start and have better educational outcomes, better mental health and, i lost my train of thought... kate, there is a sort of success breeds success if you get dads to take time off because it is probably easier forjohn, easy forjohn if he wasn't the only man at the play date? absolutely. as far as i am concerned john is leading the way on this. i said to him on and off—screen how impressed i am by that. i agree there is a cultural problem but you don't change culture organically and in a meaningful way if you do it through false. i think forcing couples, each individual to take a certain amount of time off is not the right way to go about it. nobody is proposing to force them, it is use it or lose it.

use it or lose it, i think you're putting new parents in a very difficult situation where you are threatening to take benefits away and time and leave away when that could be redistributed to the mother or the father or to anybody who wants it. which is why shared parental leave is a great thing. why are we backing away from there? becoming so draconian? the original plans we wanted to put through were six weeks for the mum, six weeks for the dad that he couldn't give away and then a big amount of shared parental leave. why do you or anyone else in no better for an individual couple? it used to be 26 weeks for the mum that she couldn't give away. we did from 26 weeks the woman mum couldn't give away, instead of taking it down to two we give them am six weeks

and the dad to six weeks. who is getting the raw deal? the self—employed. you have framed it very much as men are getting the better deal because you looked at this in the labour market rate. is there a privilege to looking after the kids? is it basically you are getting a good deal now because you have the kid time? i think ultimately, if you look at how much time the majority of men spent with their kids, i feel blessed, i really do. there was a guy doing some building work to how some years ago in his 60s, stereotypical builder. i was always around the house when he was there an idle one day i would have to explain to him why i was there with my kids. i told him it's me that looks after the kids,

my wife goes out to work and i did not expect a positive reaction. he stopped what he was doing and looked away that said, i wish i could have done what you don't because i never saw my kids up. the measure of happiness, levels of women are hired men, maybe this is a rather nice thing to do? we talk about as if it is a burden, after children? this is such an important point. when we talk about the gender pay gap it's how we can make women pursued the same career trajectories of men and there is never a conversation about women having a healthy balance and mike are making choices that make them happier. i think as long as women can pursued the same career trajectories we are in a good place. we're not quite there yet. i think, as has been pointed out my, it is assumed women will take up the household chores on childcare and i think that is a bit of an unfair assumption and there is more we could do. why is it that only going to work and working 60, 70, 80 hours a week is the right thing to do? kate is completely right and that.

the best thing from my perspective is if we were to share both the joys and burdens of family life. changing nappies is not massively fun but playing with the baby is extraordinary. picking kids up and going... there are wonderful things but also sometimes i do feel like ijust want to stick to go to work because i can sit down and have a cup of coffee. sharing it more you would enjoy it more. it means we can get away from the situation where women don't have the money, they don't have the pension savings because they can share. we are going to leave it there. thank you all very much. that is all we have time for this evening. emily will be here, but until then, a very good night. scotla nd scotland and northern ireland did the best with sunshine. a beautiful day. look at this picture. the setting sun. thank you for that. the

clearest skies further south. widespread frost developing, even in towns and cities. getting cold. the countryside. temperatures are going down. —3. —6 is possible in the cold est down. —3. —6 is possible in the coldest areas. it will be a cold but beautiful start to the day. barely a cloud in the sky. cloud from the north and west in the afternoon. high cloud making big sunshine hazy. scotla nd high cloud making big sunshine hazy. scotland and northern ireland, com pletely scotland and northern ireland, completely different. wet for northern scotland. any rain in eastern scotland is clearing. a gap in the clouds. brightness. temperatures are recovering. 11 degrees in aberdeen. 10 in london. not a bad day for many of us. thursday, a decent start to the day.

bright and sunny spells. a weather front moving in off the atlantic bringing heavy rain the western areas through the afternoon. wales in south—west england, quite windy. gales developing around the coast. a few holes in the cloud in the afternoon. temperatures, 11—12. getting more mild. friday, a weak weather front crossing the uk. a system developing in the south—west coming in late in the day. this one is uncertain, regarding how far north it will get. a strong area of low pressure could form, and if it happens, it will keep the rain further south. temperatures are not doing too badly on friday. the rain is important. for the weekend, at the moment, the forecast is pretty 5°99y the moment, the forecast is pretty soggy for scotland and northern ireland. the rain could be kept further south, which could mean a

decent start to the weekend for parts of scotland and northern ireland. the trend will continue either way, with temperatures boosting to around 10— 12 degrees in london. as we get to the weekend, some bright and sunny spells. you can go to the bbc weather site to get up—to—date. and that is your weather. welcome to newsday on the bbc. i'm mariko 0i, in singapore. the headlines: facebook is facing tough questions as the us and europe probe the link between personal information and political profit. the boss of a british firm accused of misusing the data of over fifty million users is suspended, with immediate effect. i'm sharanjit leyl, in london. also in the programme: a bbc investigation reveals young rohingya girls, who fled the violence in myanmar, are being trafficked into prostitution in bangledesh. and the last male northern white rhino in the world is gone — leaving his daughter

and granddaughter as the only ones of their kind. live from our studios in singapore and london, this is bbc world news