these are the headlines: the man who disarmed a near—naked gunman, who killed four people at a restaurant in the american state of tennessee, has shrugged off praise that he was a hero. james shaw said he simply decided to wrestle the gun off the assailant to save his own life. a big manhunt‘s underway for the suspect, 29—year—old travis reinking. as the french president emmanuel macron prepares for a state visit to the us, he's called on donald trump not to pull out of the iran nuclear deal. speaking to fox news, mr macron accepted the agreement wasn't perfect, but that he couldn't see a better option. president trump has consistently threatened to scrap the 2015 deal. at least 57 people are known to have been killed in a suicide bomb attack outside a voter registration centre in the afghan capital, kabul. the so—called islamic state says it was behind the bombing. now on bbc news, it's time for dateline london.

hello and a very warm welcome to dateline london. this week, we are discussing the surprise announcement from north korea of the suspension of nuclear missile tests. and we consider the purpose and future of the commonwealth, at the end of its biannual leaders gathering in london. with me around the table today, polly toynbee, columnist with the guardian newspaper. the american commentator, jef mcallister. ashis ray, the indian writer and broadcaster. and the british—sudanese writer and columnist, nesrine malik. welcome to all of you. we go to airjust a few hours after a surprise announcement

from north korea's leader, kimjong—un, who says he has suspended all missile tests and will close a nuclear test site in the country. it comes as the north prepares for historic talks with the south, and with the us. mr kim is due to meet his south korean counterpart, moon jae—in, next week for the first inter—korean summit in more than a decade, and the us president, donald trump, perhaps byjune. so... jef, how positive is this announcement? really, what's not to like? i mean compared to "fire and fury" a few months ago, the atmospherics are better. i think this is, it has momentum and it has momentum for both historical reasons and peculiar psychological reasons. donald trump came into office saying i'm going to do everything different from barack obama, that has been his foreign policy. he doesn't have strong opinions about the substance of things, he pushed the fire

and fury button over and over and got into a cul—de—sac. it was the diplomacy of president that changed the atmosphere and president trump who watches four, six hours of television a day, he likes the atmospherics and he said, i want more of that. and what is wrong with it? make it interesting and put me in the centre of world attention, i'll be a peacemaker. and the way he's handled it, he's actually given president kim about 50% of what he expected to get out of dealing with the americans, which is immediately a meeting with the president of united states, international legitimacy. he can trade this and use it, it's good, he is doing atmospheric things, like, i am going to suspend the testing. he can always take it back. the real thing is what's the substance? yes. does this lead to the denuclearisation of north

korea? i'm afraid the horse has left the barn and i have a hard time seeing them give up those nuclear weapons which is the reason any of this is happening. and you hear north korean diplomat saying all the time we don't want to be like colonel gaddafi and saddam hussein, nuclear weapons guarantee us. around the edges, could there be a decrease of weapons and the stopping of testing permanently and could there be diplomatic relations? established between north korea and the united states. enough to make a good photo opportunities at the summit and to make everybody feel better and that's pretty good. we will talk more about where it might go if anywhere. to what extent is this about the trump administration and the moves made there because we should remember the first round of talks is with the south in just a few days‘ time. exactly, i would be looking at the talks on friday very carefully between kim jong—un and moon jae—in. there has been some talk of the north koreans agreeing to american troops

remaining in south korea. there is an element of scepticism as to whether this will happen, but the south korean president has certainly said this on record and it will be interesting to see whether this materialises. the big question is, what is deemed to be a success or what will deemed to be a success? yes. i mean, is it getting back three americans who are being held as prisoners in north korea? is it going to be a final peace agreement between the north and the south, which hasn't happened since 1953 officially? or is it going to be really something significant, which is a nuclear free korean peninsula? so i think thejury is still out on this. and dealing with president trump, one doesn't really know what's going on. because it's twitter diplomacy. but one thing is certain, that he has to a certain extent

distracted attention from his troubles at home with this foreign policy initiative. nesrine, do you think this is what is reading it? i think the main issue with this is that trump has a very short attention span and so i would be very surprised if him or his administration had the attention span to capitalise on this afterwards. but to answer your question, what is leading it? i think donald trump is genuinely quite enamoured of strongman dictatorships. you can tell since he became president, he enjoys engaging with them and calling them out, he enjoys the twitter chat and the thuggishness of it. in terms of foreign policy, he wants to do things differently to barack obama and he genuinely has a taste for this kind of politics, and for dealing with these kind of regimes and for looking like the dominant male who has managed to subjugate the other dominant male

in the neighbourhood, and that is very much how he has viewed north korea. and now the way he has spun it or is trying to present it is not really in terms of peacekeeping, it's in terms of the fact that he has won with this faceoff with this dictator. i mean, the most important thing is that the sting comes out of it because things did get hairy a few months ago, and if it does, that's a great thing. we should still remember that the motivation behind this and the attention to detail afterwards is linked to perhaps more to donald trump's temperament and male ego than it is his peacekeeping skills. i think we should be optimistic, cautiously. the danger is that, as you say, donald trump is going to raise expectations, his own expectations. there is no doubt north korea is going to stay a nuclear country. that is it, that is it. yes, there is zero talk,

no suggestiong that that's... he has learned, as leaders do, acquiring nuclear weapons gives you status, and why would you give that away? it makes you a player. so is trump going to overplay expectations? does he think he can denuclearise it? i hope he doesn't and he thinks everything can be made much more peaceful and much, and the right token gestures are made. but we are dealing with the two most unpredictable and mercurial characters and it could be a great explosion. they could offend each other in some extraordinary way. and if we accept denuclearisation is not going to happen, what does success look like actually? i mean, do we have a genuine sense from the administration what that might be, jef? what is good from trump's perspective, he can define success. north korea is not a burning

issue for americans politically and they don't pay attention to the fine point of the nuclear programme of north korea, everybody knows it is a terrible regime and nobody is talking about regime change, certainly well he is having the summit. this is good for a trump idea. you have the summit and the photo opportunity and you say you experts will work on the denuclearisation problem for some years. we have lots of korean cheerleaders coming to america for exchanges. i mean, after all, when nixon went to china when china had nuclear weapons pointing at the united states, no—one expected china to denuclearise, the idea of containment, which is to be the policy of united states faced with powers, it was in the end, they will collapse, they have internal contradictions which could manifest, which did happen with the soviet union.

north korea is a special case, it is much more controlled, the internet makes it easier for the regime to control people as well as for things to come in, who knows if there will be some kind an internal revolution. i don't see it. could trump say, we are going to give you a security guarantee so the north korean regime starts to relax and do perestroika? they don't want that stuff. i don'tjust see how we are going to get any kind of success measurable out of this. it'sjust going to be not having a war and that is not success enough for trump to play it at home. the two relevant facets to the success, the success of the project on the ground in north korea and how this plays out for trump domestically. i think trump is obsessed with appearing presidential, with appearing sort of decisive and larger than life. and unfortunately, the media loves this sort of thing. you know, they love it when donald trump launches missile attacks in syria and when there is a kind of bold foreign policy gesture. over the last 48 hours, yes,

there has been sensible experts saying, like yourself, saying, we don't know where this is going and i think the most we can ask for is that there is a continuation of the peaceful status quo. others have trotted out the same line whenever we see donald trump doing something a little bit less erratic and random than his usual behaviour, saying well, you know, it looks like he has got the hang of it now and he is growing into the role. i don't buy that. have sanctions played any part in this, are they biting more than we realise? that is possible, things are very difficult in north korea. but at the same time, i think for the american public, success would be the return of the three prisoners. that is i think something that trump can come back and say, here you are, i brought the three prisoners back. the more ambitious, the really big success of getting north korea to give up

their weapons, nuclear weapons, i doubt very much whether that's going to happen. but, the suspension is significant. at the same time, it has to be said that in this day and age, you can carry out simulation, you can carry out laboratory tests, so you don't really have to do these open tests. therefore, you can suspend the tests. i don't think from that perspective, while it is significant, it's a huge concession. and it's something that he can take back if he really wants to, if he is not satisfied. so we are dealing with a very erratic system and leadership. perhaps on both sides. as has been reflected. the first set of talks on friday, so we will see what emerges from that and we know we will be discussing that on dateline. 46 heads of government and a further seven foreign ministers gathered in london this week,

representing the 53 countries that make up the commonwealth. the queen, on thursday, amid the splendour of buckingham palace, said it was her sincere wish that her heir, prince charles, would one day be leader. duly, on friday, the leaders announced that the non—hereditary role would indeed pass to her son when the time comes. but the summit was overshadowed, certainly in the uk, by the windrush scandal, the prime minister apologising and promising compensation to people who'd arrived in the uk largely between the 1940s and 1970s, who'd been perhaps refused medical treatment — in some cases, faced deportation — because they didn't have documentation that proved their right to be in the country. we'll talk more about the future of the commonwealth injust a moment. but let's talk first of all, polly, about windrush, a huge embarrassment for the british government. polly, an extraordinary few days for the british government

and a huge embarrassment. extraordinary. the guardian has been writing about this for months and months and it suddenly took off the week of the commonwealth heads of state, which is very bad timing for the government. and for theresa may in particular, who was responsible for this policy and the hostile environment. people who were here legitimately, who had been here four years and who had paid their taxes and their stamps, and whose lives have been absolutely destroyed, a lot of them lost theirjobs, terrible things have happened to people. and i think as a representation of the commonwealth, people kept saying, well, the commonwealth will replace. i think this will have left a very sour taste and a sense that, well, they don't really want us and are they going to give us more visas? i don't think so. is there any real welcome from britain? ifind it astonishing that they so easily accepted prince charles as the next leader when they should really have democratically elected somebody themselves. but they seem to have accepted this peculiar organisation. they sat in a room together

in windsor on friday and that was the announcement, so we won't know unless somebody says something how that decision was reached. i think the visa question and how many citizens will be allowed in is very important as they go away. certainly when it comes to free trade agreements. for instance, one talked about between britain and india. free movement will be a very important factor. it is not going to happen from an indian perspective unless pre—movement is permitted, pedigree for people working in the high—tech industries, the software industries where people need to come on intercompany transfers and spent time here, two years, three years, before they go back. unless that free movement is there, there is not going to be any free trade agreements, certainly not between britain and india. and the ftas take very long to negotiate. so the british government and brexiteers are trying to fool the public

by saying the commonwealth will replace the european union, it's not going to happen. today, the trade britain does with the commonwealth is 9% of britain's trade and 44% of britain's trade is with the european union. it's going to take a century for any change to take place and it's not going to happen because today, countries in the commonwealth have a choice. in the past, they had to buy british goods because britain considered these colonies to be captive markets. but today, each country has a choice. each country will go for the best and each country will go for the best price. and what is best for them economically. it's not about emotional ties or historical ties. exactly. i think it's a club which is toothless because it is a nice place to get together. but the big boys are missing, four of the five permanent members of the un security

council are not there. germany is not present, japan is not present. so it's an organisation which talks and talks, but does not deliver. since the 19805, which i believe was the high point of the commonwealth, when the commonwealth provided leadership to the world to dismantle apartheid in south africa, it has faded away. and today, what we have seen with prince charles being confirmed as successor to the queen as the next head of the commonwealth is a reassertion of the commonwealth being a british commonwealth rather than a modern commonwealth. because i have a little history on this. if i may! not too long! it came into being in 1949 as a formula which said it would be an association of sovereign states. but it is very much attached to the apron strings of britain.

to your point, do others think that this was the commonwealth missing a trick, if you like, that the discussion about succession, whatever was said, whatever went on, could have been an opportunity to look in however many years‘ time to modernise and to change and to shift a bit? i don't think members of the commonwealth have the same delusion that britain still has anything that really matters any more. it is a symbolic status that prince charles has, he has no control over a lot of the practical economic decisions made. why rock the boat? it is only britain that has this really peculiar view of the commonwealth. and indeed, all of its foreign relations as a hangover of colonialism or imperialism, where britain has the status. and it has been interesting to see how the language has crept in to the discourse about brexit in the past couple of years, popular culture has become a little bit more fetishising of colonialism

and world war two in particular and the empire. and ifeel like there has been a displacement and that europe, to the british, brexiteers, is seen as a region of obstreperous equals giving them a hard time and trying to dominate and subjugate britain. whereas the commonwealth is a sort of lovely, leafy hangover of colonialism full of pliant leaders under the monarchy prince charles. the truth is, they don't care, they are getting on with business. and charles, fine, that is the easiest way of doing it and he is a good big had and maybe meghan markle will visit and it will be nice paparazzi events. nobody really cares in terms of the practical impact. that is my point, is there any practical use to it as an institution? the argument goes it's better for leaders to talk.

and soft power does matter, the fact these countries do speak english and their strange emotional ties, maybe in one direction more than the other, i remember secretary of state in the united states said when they were having really tough issues leading up to the iraq war, they would call their friends in downing street and have the downing street people make the arguments back to the people in washington. they sound so much smarter when it comes to the british accent! and there is a sense in which britain has cards to play, but the commonwealth does not have any substance any longer. it doesn't mean anything. the fact that prince charles is the leader, maybe they chose prince charles in the same way no—one chose theresa may, for fear of what else would be that. it is a sign an organisation not thrusting forward.

do english speaking countries have a lot they can do in trade terms, if you know the language is someone else, can you make a phone call and make something happen? sure. but i think that was a vision of london at the centre of international finance and trade, companies from japan were going to make their headquarters here because they couldn't get into europe and they could still send their kids to english language schools because they preferred that, and that is the vision of england at the centre of an expanding economic universe which i am afraid is not the same if europe is taken out of the picture. i think that is really interesting, the optics were really tragic for the uk. the windrush generation scandal happened at the same time that all this commonwealth, these commonwealth meetings were happening. and it really brought home how even though britain pretends it is going to be open to the world and replace the european epicentre of trade, commerce and foreign

policy with an approach, a more global approach, it's just so clear the windrush scandal made it so clear that britain is delusional about how it treats citizens from non—eu countries. it treats them with contempt, as extracted figures and with contempt. also desperately needing them for the economy. the reason the british still feel they are in colonial times is because they do deal in a colonial heavy—handed way we non—eu citizens. so the justification was interesting that britain wants to make brexit a success by engaging with the world on an equal footing where it is not dictating the terms and making victims are people who have come to this country illegally to work and to pay taxes, it needs to adjust its attitude. if not happen, it will be a failure.

india is this incredibly powerful and important country in the world, far more important than we are. if we cannot allow their commonwealth citizens into this country and be generous with visas because we desperately want to trade with india, if we can't do that, we really are done for. if our petty mindedness, our brexit state of mind cannot be generous towards a country that we really need, then the commonwealth is meaningless. but after many years, i would say after 25 years, india has increased its interest in the commonwealth, it is going to put in more money for technical funds to help the small states. and various other matters connected with the commonwealth. so to that extent, there is a change in indian foreign policy under modi which was not there for a long time. increasingly, the indian foreign office lost interest in the commonwealth and their emphasis was

on the united nations. that said, i think the main issue in this just—concluded chogm was the succession. it was not the other issues. what governed it from the very beginning, from the queen's speech to the end and it is in the read a statement, the succession. to the end and it is in the leader's statement, the succession. now, i agree with polly that in principle, the commonwealth, in order to fit into the character of being modern, which was emphasised as far back as 1919, it could have explored democratic option in of having had by rotation. but it was not practical to do so. so therefore in the end, i have to agree, there was no alternative, at least on this occasion, to have charles as successor. polly, a final thought as to whether you think theresa may has done enough on the windrush issue.

we've had multiple apologies over the last few days and now talk of compensation. it has been so damaging, is the sufficient? she has not been good at damage limitation because all of those people should have been dealt with immediately and they should have had grovelling letters they can hold up to the television. they should be given compensation very fast. unbelievably slow process. one of the things is that the home office is unbelievably inept and incompetent and the idea it can cope with european citizens i'iow being treated in that way as well, millions of them, is unthinkable. so no, it has been dealt with very badly and it is going to dragon. more cases will come up and they will not have been dealt with promptly. that may well be a topic for future weeks. thanks very much. it is good to see you all. we're back next week, at the same time. goodbye. good morning.

sunday evening storms in east anglia got the last of the good weather out of the way. big changes, jetstream firing across the atlantic to the uk and we are on the side and that ta kes and we are on the side and that takes us to more typical springlike weather. the sun made things feel nice enough but when the showers come through it will feel rather cool come through it will feel rather cool. monday morning compared to friday will be much fresher. temperatures in single figures and the best of the bright weather to

the best of the bright weather to the south and east, compensated with a bit of sunshine first thing and cloud in over through the west, good sunny spells continuing in eastern areas but in the west, grey skies dominating, northern ireland with rain spreading to western scotland and around the irish sea. temperatures here around ten to 1a, not far off sunday afternoon, a big drop to the east of the country but that said, 15—18, still not bad for the time of year, especially with sunshine continuing. the cloud takes over as we go through the evening and overnight, occasional rain in most parts of the uk, linked into this weather system but the bulk of which will be out of the way by tuesday that a trailing weather front to the north of scotland and southern counties of england, top and tail of the country, lots of cloud to start tuesday. scotland, northern ireland and northern england will see showers through the day. while we will see some sunshine in the south—east, the cloud will thicken and skies will turn grey and misty and murky weather to finish tuesday in western half of england

and wales with outbreaks of rain. feeling nice enough if you see any bright breaks in the south—east corner but even that milder air is pushed out of the way as rain clears the route to stay night into wednesday, and wednesday is a typical april showers day. showers in the west, developing more widely across the country, heavy with hail and thunder and you'll be lucky to com pletely and thunder and you'll be lucky to completely miss them and when the showers come through it will feel d ista ntly showers come through it will feel distantly chilly, 11—15. we'll have those temperatures through the rest of the week, showers most predominant to the north, a bit drier further south, but the predominant to the north, a bit drierfurther south, but the nights getting that bit chilly too. bye for 110w. welcome to bbc news — broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is nkem ifejika. these are our top stories: a manhunt under way in tennessee, after a shooting at a restaurant in nashville left four dead. one diner‘s hailed a hero for wrestling a rifle from the gunman.

i figured, if i was going to die, he was going to have to work for it. so i rushed him, and it actually worked out to my favour. on the eve of his us visit, president macron urges donald trump not to pull out of the iran nuclear deal. grief and rage in the afghan capital, kabul, after a suicide bombing kills at least 57 people. more mass protests in armenia as tens of thousands demand the resignation of the country's long—time leader.