he is going to be a great president of france, that's my prediction, only a prediction. we do have a very special wallacia ship. in fact i can do this. he is perfect! i like him a lot —— special relationship. suddenly it seems there are three of us suddenly it seems there are three of us in this special relationship. trump and macron, an extraordinary bromance in washington. should it be the reason they who is there? maybe we don't want to bid from's best friend anyway. we cannot help but ask if this is a sign of diminishing uk influence. labour is meeting withjewish community groups does not seem to have gone well. we hear of a key player in the room. also tonight: this is a world with as many realities as there are points of view. in this game, seeing and believing have switched places. this information war is, the new propaganda is designed

to confuse not persuade. alistair campbell will be with us to talk politics and truth. and the reverend giles fraser went on a friendly visit to syria last week, he has been called a useful idiot helping the assad regime. we'll put that charge to him. hello there. so, this was not meant to happen. we are meant to be america's best buddy. reaching out to the world. we are meant to be champions of pomp, and brexit—supporting trump is meant to be on our side. and yet there trump was today treating the french president to a state visit and feting him like a prince. one could only watch the tv feed from washington with jaw on the floor. and president macron played it well, simultaneously flattering the american president, like you do, while also prodding him not to do the wrong thing. translation: it is together that we can resist the rise of aggressive nationalism that deny our history and divide the world.

it is together we will build a new, strong multilateralism that defends pluralism and democracy in the face of ill winds. i'm sure there was a bit in adrian mole's diary where he finds himself cut out of the fun when his best friend tags up with a rival, or was it bridgetjones? i might be mis—remembering there, but was that the sentiment they were coping with in the foreign office as they saw the way it was going? macron has been called the trump whisperer, a man who seems get through to him without giving in to him. but, but, but, that being said, it didn't all go macron‘s way, desperate as he was to nudge trump on climate change, and the iran nuclear deal. people know my views on the iran deal. it was a terrible deal, it should have never, ever been made. we could have made a good deal or a reasonable deal. the iran deal is a terrible deal. we paid $150 billion, we gave $1.8 billion in cash, that's actual cash, barrels of cash.

it's insane. it's ridiculous, it should have never been made. president trump changes his mind a lot, but not often at the behest of even the friendliest of european leaders. well, should we be envious of the favourable optics of this macron trip? many here didn't enjoy seeing our prime minister holding hands with president trump, maybe we don't even want a special relationship if he's in charge. but at the very least, this might play to fears that britain's global role diminishing. is it? why? here's our diplomatic editor, mark urban. well, this is something. theresa may got mocked for some brief handholding. but today we saw kisses, some large primate type mutual grooming and proper handholding. at summits we sometimes ask for a lip reader. but what would a mind reader tell us about macron‘s day? i like him a lot.

i think macron has very keen sense of the french national interest and if trump is in favour of make america great again and putin of make russia great again, i think macron's mission is to make france great again. so i think there is a mixture of all these elements. but they do seem to get on quite well together and that goes back to that famous invitation that mr macron issued last year for trump to go to the bastille. behind today's carefully choreographed bonhomie, ha rd—pressed realities. france said it would strike syria for using chemical weapons even if no one else did and then launched twice as much ordnance as britain, and that sense of france being more ready to partner the us military

operations has been growing. it is very different from previous french governments. for example, charles de gaulle was against any military operation with the us, and macron, who has been quite inspired by de gaulle in other fields, in this situation, is really going the complete opposite way. when macron invited to romp to the bastille day parade in paris last year there were some isolated protests, but most french people seem to have accepted it was in the national interest. macron from the start reaffirmed the need to re—engage with the us and realised he had to engage

strategically with the us, but we found he would be absolutely clear when he disagreed and i think there was a certain element of the french electorate that there president would represent french interests. contrast that to the position of britain, having rushed into a white house photo opportunity early in the presidency, theresa may has been unable to promise the state visit. it is opposed by many in parliament and there are fears of huge protest. britain deserves better than outsourcing our security and prosperity to the whims of the trump white house, so no more handholding with donald trump. macron's main aim was to keep trump signed up to the iran nuclear deal. publicly that president used the press conference to threaten iran militarily. so for a macron there will have to be some wins if he is to retain public support for this diplomacy. macron cannot return to paris without getting something on the iran nuclear deal, without getting something on american steel tariffs against the eu and cannot get some idea what trump plans next for example in syria, where britain and france and america acted very recently. then the visit will look like flimflam. macron has an imperial presidency,

a large personal mandate and a public acquiescence that theresa may can only dream of, but this budding relationship could easily be uprooted by trump's ideology and mercurial personality. mark urban. joining me now is former british ambassador to france, lord ricketts for a british perspective. and from paris we get an american view from the new york times bureau chief, alissa rubin. very good evening to you. you were in france, president hollande couldn't have done this, there's a bit of chemistry and macron personality at play? there is, and between leaders, personality is something. david cameron barack obama were very close. he was not cutting a great figure on the international scene. now things are reversed, theresa may is mired in brexit and we have this new young

charismatic dynamic leader in france who has made a real connection. you knew him in france and you made a connection, is he good at the smalltalk, big talk, the tactile staff? clearly looked good at the tactile staff. he is extraordinarily good at charming and flattering and engaging the attention of people. when you are in front of him he has got blue eyes that lock on to you, you are the only person who counts and he is using that charm for political reasons. have you been surprised at how close the relationship between them has been? yes and i have been surprised how quickly it has moved forwards. because i could easily have imagined quite a bit of hesitation on the part of both macron and trump to trust each other. do you think trump actually likes something about macron, because macron. .. we had this famous handshake

game where trump seemed to be the one trying to have a firm handshake, does that impress the president, do you think? what impresses him probably is that macron has a certain class and i do think trump has wanted to look more worldly and sophisticated than he often does, and to some extent, been in macron's presence sort of adds to his own... i would not say dignity exactly, but it makes him look a little more polished and i think that is something he likes. that gets us to the brits, i thought we were the specialists in class. is this a sign that we are doing something wrong or that we do not want to be the best friend of trump? we have been reticent about it all? what do think is going on on our side? we have been reticent

about a state visit. particularly trumped coming here. we made him feel unwelcome. we told him, don't even bother. that was apart from one or two people. it is different in france, i think french people by and large want their president to be out there and are prepared to accept he may go to washington and come home empty—handed. he tried, he represented europe, they respect that but it is different here. do you worry that this is a sign that we are not being taken as seriously? people will be saying that we are meant to be reaching out to be americans post—brexit and here they are taking more seriously than us. behind all of that stuff around the state visit, which is only short—term., there is a more important message. in the short term, we are not doing a lot of foreign policy, we are not really engaging with the big issues and in the longer term when we are do longer in the eu, it will not count for as much in washington and we need to try harder, really go out there...

we have had some influence, the sergei skripal thing, it did not look like we had lost any influence when we asked about helping with the sanctions. it was very well handled and syria showed that we are still world players, but our foreign secretary does not command respect and the prime minister does not have bandwidth to do foreign policy and the government is consumed with brexit. if we can come on from there and we can rebuild that would be good. that is the view of former british diplomat and i would like to hear your view as an american observer for the british are, are we losing influence and profile? that is difficult to say definitively sitting here in paris, but what i would say, it has been enormously helpful for the anglo—american relationship to have the british as the representatives of that in brussels and now that britain is withdrawing from the eu and that role in brussels,

i think that the americans are looking for a leader and a european partner who will be there and who will carry some of their views into that forum, which they're otherwise pretty much excluded from. i think that's quite a difference. that is a difference. let me ask you, it does any of this matter, can anyone influence this president anyway? we saw trump standing there, berating the iran deal, that is one of the things that macron is meant to be upholding. can he do it, can anyone do it?” wouldn't count on it at this point. it felt to me as if trump went through about six different positions over the course of a couple of hours from before to after the bilateral meeting and even during the press conference afterwards. i think he's still in flux and i think that's the whole gamble

for a macron, you try to insert a few ideas, open up a possibility or two and maybe trump will consider taking macron up on it. we will see how the relationship goes. thank you both. now we did ask the government to talk to us about this but they said nobody was available. not since gordon brown went to meet gillian duffy — the woman he called a bigot in the 2010 election campaign — has there been a more anticipated meeting between a labour leader, and an offended party. tonight, jeremy corbyn sat down with two groups representing thejewish community in the uk — the board of deputies and thejewish leadership council. even before the meeting, mr corbyn had apologised profusely, but in the event, the meeting did not go well. joining me now is one of the key men in that meeting, jonathan arkush, president of the board of deputies. good evening. just tell us what went on and white it did not go so well. the tone was friendly, jeremy corbyn was extremely engaging.

he looked interested, he said some new words in his interview tonight. but we had no actions to go with the words, yet again. and that was why we felt that the meeting had been a missed opportunity and a great disappointment. he called it positive and constructive. was he in a different meeting? positive, yes, but if you measure constructive by the actions to go with the words i do not think that is what i would call it. he clearly thinks that he has listened and is working on it. he says i've a new general secretary with improving our disciplinary procedures, we will lay out the further steps that we are taking

in the coming weeks. now what is wrong with that, i mean, it is a big party and it has to decide how it is going to deal with this rather than just take a list of measures from youtube lament. they said they would take on an in—house counsel but the job has onlyjust been advertised. we're talking of possibly several hundred outstanding disciplinary proceedings, some of which have been hanging fire for a year or more. thousands ofjewish people did not demonstrate in parliament square for a few lawyers and a newspaper article.

do you feel that the slow progress as you see it, is feeling that that is political because they are reluctant to do it orjust because it is bit bureaucratic and it takes a lot of time. a little bit of both, there was a very frank recognition from jennie formby, the new general secretary, that until recently labour and its disciplinary processes were not fit for purpose so we welcome the fact that they're trying to make them fit for purpose. we asked for was an independent ombudsman who could resolve any issues if things were going too slowly or people hadn't been brought to book. on that there was a pretty clear now. is it possible is a bit of politics mixed up in this because you'd do have the sense that a lot of people will recognise that there are genuine concerns but they will think mixed in with all of that is the slight sense that a lot of people do not likejeremy corbyn and they're using this. can you persuade those people that it is not aboutjeremy corbyn question might well the jewish community, are only interest is in protecting and defending the jewish community for the board of deputies called out anti—semitism

wherever it may be and we have done that and we do it in all political parties. you only have to look at the westminster debate last week when you had a trail of members may leap from the anti—semitism that their mps have encountered. also andrew quinn who was behind the table tonight, on the french bench he accepted that there was a problem and jeremy corbyn himself accepted that. he has been explicit, he accepts the problem. the last question, could you imagine voting labour? i might devote all kinds of ways, like most british citizens but right at the moment, no. and i think that my views are shared by almost all members of the britishjewish community, many of whom were long—standing labour party members and finally felt that they could remain in the party no longer. only because of the anti—semitism? because people could say that proves you are not one of us, telling us how to run the party. you might not particularly approve

of all of the policies ofjeremy corbyn but to tear up your membership card of the labour party and by implication vote for a different party, but is a pretty far—reaching step. and i know manyjewish people who have played long roles in the labour party have done that. thank you very much. now, for many anxious citizens, the problem of our time is notjust that so many challenging things are happening in the world, but that so much disinformation is spread about them. how can we even have a proper conversation about things going wrong when so many people seem intent on dividing and confusing us with falsehoods? this is in reality an understandable mashup of connected concerns — conspiracies on social media, falsehoods propogated by politicians, and the worries about clever targeting techniques by people like cambridge analytica. but of late, it is the geopolitical nonsense that has been at the fore: deliberate falsehoods spread by nations — one in particular — about chemical attacks or whatever, designed to breed distrust. propaganda is hardly new but it does feel like the game has changed.

gabriel gatehouse has been trying to work out the new rules. hello, welcome to a world of total relativism. this is a world with as many realities as there are points of view. in this game, seeing and believing have switched places. it may look confusing at first, but don't worry, sit down, relax, you might like it here. hello, welcome to a world of total relativism. this is a world with as many realities as there are points of view. in this game, seeing and believing have switched places. it may look confusing at first, but don't worry, sit down, relax, you might like it here. then again... you might not. on the 7th of april,

pictures emerged that appeared to show children in douma, a suburb of damascus, being treated after a chemical attack. the syrian government has used chemical weapons in the past. the view in the west was clear, it looked like they had done it again. if they are found to be responsible, the regime and its backers, including russia, must be held to account. but from moscow, things looked very different indeed. that certain country, russian officials made clear, is britain. in war, there are often disagreements over who is responsible for an attack, but this is different. the narrative has evolved over time, so as soon as the attacks were reported, you saw well known pro—kremlin and pro—assad internet trolls

advancing the narrative that this was a genuine attack that had been committed by the rebels, but then, quickly, you had more official sources, such as the russian foreign ministry and the russian defence ministry, saying that the whole story is a fake, the images are a fake, the video is a fake, the story is a provocation. in the real world, this is a binary situation, either there was a chemical attack or there wasn't. on the ground, a team of international experts are checking. but meanwhile, in the world of information warfare, the russians are on the offensive. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. moscow's chief diplomat in london has been holding marathon press briefings, covering topics from syria... the white helmets are supported by the british government. they are giving them money. and they are famous for staging fake chemical attacks. to salisbury.

we get the impression that the british government is deliberately pursuing the policy of destroying all possible evidence. to a multimedia presentation on iraq. myjudgment as prime minister is that this threat is real, growing and of an entirely different nature to any conventional threat to our security that britain has faced before. the programme in the form that we thought it was did not exist in the way that we thought. so i can apologise for that. russia makes no secret of the fact that it believes it is fighting an information war. those who study this campaign say moscow is using a mixture of methods to produce a potent propaganda cocktail. you have state—controlled sites, you have the state bureaucracy, you have the state diplomats, you have allegedly independent websites, allegedly independent broadcasters and allegedly independent trolls and bots, but you see that they all work together, they all amplify the same message and they all support

the russian government's narrative and they all attack the russian government's critics. one of those who has been named in the uk government's analysis, variously as a russian bot or a troll, is someone with the twitter handle @ian56789. up until the 7th of april, he was tweeting continuously about salisbury, echoing the russian government's line that the uk was behind the poisoning. then, after reports of the attack in douma emerged, he seamlessly switched to pushing moscow's line on syria. he is not in fact a bot, he is a real person, called ian schilling, and over skype, i asked him whether he was, though, a pro—kremlin troll. i am not controlled by anybody, anywhere in the world. i do my own thing. i look... i am interested in analysing the evidence of what is going on. no credible journalist anywhere... they lie.

they parrot whatever the government lines are. the uk government is going to lie all the time, because they are up to no good. but your tweets seem to parrot whatever the russian government lines are. well, because if the russians are telling the truth about something, i'm going to agree with them. because i report the truth. if you want to check whether you're dealing with a bit of russian propaganda, there's one phrase that's a dead giveaway. false flag operation. it basically means somebody else did something to make russia look bad. according to pro—kremlin twitter accounts, reinforced by state—run channels and official statements, recent examples include the shooting down of mh 17 in ukraine and, of course, the poisoning of sergei and yulia skripal with a military grade nerve agent. russia has floated more than 20 theories for what happened in salisbury. they include, the brits did it to distract from brexit. or maybe it was the czechs. or the slovaks.

or possibly the swedes. all states engage in strategic communications. call it pr if you like, or propaganda, if you prefer. now, traditionally this involves trying to get people to believe that your version of events is indeed the truth. they're trying to get people to trust nobody. another weapon in moscow's propaganda arsenal is a method known as "what about it?". here's how it works. you say you have intelligence that russia used a chemical weapon in salisbury? well, what about iraq? one narrative is effectively neutralised by another apparently unrelated objection.

a collection of british academics known as the working group on syria, propaganda and media, was last week accused of being assad apologists and spreading russian propaganda. tara mccormac is a member of the group. among her many media appearances, she is a regular commentator on rt. do you think that the russians fabricate stuff, make up nonsense stories and feed them into the bloodstream to try and confuse people? yes. so, do we need to be worried about that? well, i think that also we do that too. so we need to think about that. and i'm going to say, you know, the best word, that was exactly what happened in iraq. you know, we talk about fake news. the kind of dodgy dossier, as it became known, the claim of 45 minutes. that is the most astonishing case of fake news you could have. some people would call you a useful idiot. yes, i know. well, that's fine. but i think if asking for evidence and due process and caution is to be a useful idiot, i think that says much more about the accusers than about me.

indeed, almost to ask for them, and i have experienced this, is to be dismissed as a traitor. so i'm sorry, i actually thought that was quite an important part of british democracy. one of the hallmarks of a healthy democracy is a robust and open exchange of ideas. we may disagree, but our disagreements are based on a set of commonly accepted facts. but what happens to a society when, amid an avalanche of information online, the boundaries between truth and fiction become blurred? i think the public space is being eroded because of the amount of anonymous communication that we receive. when you know who's speaking, or from whom your letter came, or even which newspaper you're reading, you have got a certain hold on what's relevant tojudging the content. when it's anonymous,

you don't have much hold and that i think is our difficulty, that we have far more content whose origins we do not know. when we get algorithmic distribution of content, i don't see that it is possible for any individual to harness commensurate powers of questioning, because it is coming as it were down so many channels, from so many sources, so congruent, so convincing. the russian government has a very bad track record. not just of getting things wrong, but of being caught falsifying the evidence. the purpose really seems to be to confuse people, to overwhelm them with so many different theories that they will actually give up. we've entered a world of confirmation bias.

with unfettered access to information, we are siloed in our social media bubbles. where once seeing was believing, now it's the other way around. and here's what the new propagandists of the 21st—century have realised. the more we see, the less we understand. i'm joined by alastair campbell, who was the spokesman for prime minister tony blair, and peter pomera ntsev, author of nothing is true and everything is possible: the surreal heart of the new russia. peter, how new is what we're seeing at the moment? in a way it is very old. in soviet times there were whole kgb departments designed to spread active measures which was to spread fakes and hoaxes into the western media. in a way, what the russians are doing draws from an old tradition. it is a tradition that every military has. i wouldn't say it's even unique to russia. what has happened now, as your report accentuated,

new media has made it easier to do. there is a philosophical mood were people feel relitavistic, that their approach to thing has reached an absurdity where people cannot seem to agree on anything any more. you have this weird mix of foreign power using disinformation, new media and a weird mood in society. do you agree with that, alistair campbell? are we in a strange time and it is notjust the russians, it is fuelled by other things? i think the russians were onto this much faster and i think they were onto it from the perspective that it could benefit them and the whole concept of hybrid warfare that our intelligence agencies and military have been talking about for some time, they thought that we were behind the game. the other thing that was not in the programme, i get why, your opening item this evening about trump,

having vladimir putin operating the way he does and now having an american president who feels no compunction about lying whatsoever, also here, having had brexit, frankly won by a lot of lying, and then the liars promoted to very senior positions,... i don't want to get into an argument about brexit. it is part of the same thing. what's happening... also you used the word about being polarised, we are all driven and o'neill was talking about the algorithms of life, we are driven into our own concentric bubbles. peter, does it matter? if anyone wants the truth, you can watch the bbc, read the guardian, the telegraph and you will know what you're getting. they do not have to look at unsourced rubbish on the internet. it takes a modicum of information hygiene to protect you against this, doesn't it? i don't know. why would anyone wants the facts? why would anyone want the facts?

they are unpleasant, they tell you mostly that you're going to die, that you're not as successful as you want, they tell you negative things. a place for fantasy. reality is not pleasant, if you can escape into a fantasy, into a world were you hear what you want, think about why we go online, we go there, especially to social media, for an ego boost from likes and shares, and the more of those you get, the more polarised you are. there's a lot of studies about that. you're going there for a fantastic narcissistic experience. you're not going there for the truth. people would prefer to know that if they are seen something, that they can believe it, but i think it is really difficult i'iow. for example, you look at douma and what happened there, there were reports on russian television, interviews with russian military in front of incidents that our military we re front of incidents that our military were saying did happen and they were

saying nothing happened. how can you work out what is true? you're forced to take sides all of a sudden. alistair, i will ask the question that the audience is thinking, they are probably thinking why did you not want to talk about brexit? did the old political establishment, notjust talking about iraq for now, did the old political establishment, of which you were such a big part in communication terms, did you create a hostile environment to truth over many years, that, if you like, laid a ground work in which the political establishment had very little trust capital in the bank? i really don't think so. if you look... the whole time that i was doing the job with tony blair, i think the reason it became so controversial was because the media was changing so fast, the media landscape was changing out of all recognition. did you ever tell a direct light? did you ever tell a direct lie? no, no.

you never told a direct lie of the media? now, when i was doing briefings, i felt the same pressure that tony blair felt. you sometimes did not say everything he wanted. robert armstrong was telling the truth. including may i say the media. let me make this point. i think the real corrosion of trust has come from the fa ct corrosion of trust has come from the fact most spin these days, comes from —— these days comes from journalists. that is now ventilated by social media. this came strongly out of the peace. when people are asked, you're telling a lie about alexander litvinenko, they ask about iraq? do realise that your dodgy dossier created a credibility gap. you say don't blame, but the fact

that, for example, there have been five enquiries... this is what i didn't get into. —— want to get into. do you think those enquiries persuaded anyone? do you really think that the enquiries had laid it to rest or do you accept... for those who do not want to believe, they don't. that's because you don't want to believe. what do you think the old political establishment in the west, peter, they thought they were doing a good job and they were honest kind of people, like alistair they have to play the game a little, did that leave us in a vulnerable position where we are now? there have been many historical factors and we all have to deal with the past and that is important, it is bracing to be here in britain where we see journalists interrogating the former political operative in such a great way, it was not possible in russia when i lived there. my great worry is, i was still at university when alexander litvinenko happened, i hate to see children

in syria paying the price for some weird english quarrel you are having. i am glad you're having it, but children are getting killed now, can we get past this alistair campbell problem ? i don't see why ukrainians have to pay for it alistair‘s mistakes. should he have made any? thank you very much indeed. and, if anyone from the russian government is watching, we'd love to have you on the programme at any time to hear your perspective on this. this is not an entirely unrelated topic. last week, a delegation of british christians went to visit syria. they've been much criticised for offering succour to the assad regime, for being useful idiots, to use that phrase again, who end up giving credence to the government there, while being shown a highly distorted view of the real situation. among the group, the reverend giles fraser, the priest—in—charge of st mary, newington in south london.

you may know him from such radio 4 slots as thought for the day and the moral maze. he's been singled out for special criticism for tweeting things such as with the grand mufti of syria, talking about how love is stronger than missiles. very warm greeting despite the bombings. was he a tool of assad or simply going to meet christians and others struggling to keep going there? giles fraser is with me now. good evening. the grand mufti... badman. did you tell him? i didn't even know i was going to meet him until i did. we did not have any names on the programme about the people we were going to meet, this was apparently for security reasons. i had no idea who i would meet. amnesty claim, and i don't think you're going to dispute it... no, i'm not. we sat down with some bad people. do you accept that was a mistake to tweet the nice stuff? i do.

i'm too gobby on social media. i share that fault with others. that was definitely a mistake but i have to say, going was not a mistake. we went at the invitation of the syrian orthodox church. two years ago, i think it was this week, the british parliament accepted unanimously that what's been happening to christians in syria and iraq should be called genocide. when a church in syria says come and see our situation, i have to say in damascus, the cradle of christianity where supporters converted, they say the lord's prayer in aramaic, we do have to come and see it. the risk was real. the harm is you provide propaganda material to the syrian regime who i know you do not support.

gareth brown, who spent some time with the delegation, said that the state media were reporting on this british delegation visiting... he was in the delegation. you were bestowed with a kind of semi—official status and the syrian people are thinking we have friends outside and getting quite the wrong idea and you were doing that. in terms of the charge of useful idiot, i accept idiot but not useful. i really don't think the vicar of the elephant & castle is really going to be of any great propaganda value to the sort of hideous assad regime. aren't you being a bit modest? you have evening slots on radio 4 and used to write for the guardian. you have 43,000 twitter followers. you're not a nobody, you are a big quy- even to say that we took that risk, there were always risks of going and you could be misrepresented and used. but do you know why i would still go again and take the risk? i would be more circumspect

about the people i met, i try to be, but it was right for us to go and talk to syrian christians and to hear from them and hear what the situation is and that was the shocking thing. me sitting down with some bad people, and absolutely i did, but that's the key story, is what is happening to christianity in a place like syria is terrifying. you're not asking about that. that's the priority! you were tweeting stuff about the british line. you accepted the syrian narrative, you did the job they wanted and said that christians believe it is isis or assad. they do believe that. they do believe that. that is the syrian government line. do you think that christians would be free to say anything other than the assad narrative?

this is the important bit. syria is a police state and is vicious and horrible. so you can't believe anything anyone says to you. the very first sermon we received on sunday morning was on doubting thomas and they looked at us and i thought there was a little bit... something interesting about the patriarch talking about doubting thomas on the first day, but what they say publicly and what they say privately are different things and i did come away believing that they thought, both officially and privately, more nuanced privately that the choices, for them, between assad who they do not much care for and isis, who they are terrified of, if that is the choice,... that is where the west are working for it not to be the choice. thank you. that's all we have time for. i'm back tomorrow. goodnight. hello there, good evening to you.

temperatures reached 18.5dc today at gravesend in kent, not as hot as what we saw last week, but the trend for this week is for temperatures to continue to drop day on day, closer to the april average. tomorrow looking classic leigh aiple, sunshine and heavy showers, some will contain hail and thunder. but it shouldn't be too bad in the sunshine. satellite picture shows this massive cloud crossing the country today, some rain bearing, clearer skies behind but these speckles, indicating the showers. as we head through the course of the early hours, you can see the last of the cloud, dribs and drabs of rain eventually clearing into the north sea and sky's world news for many areas. a few showers into western scotla nd areas. a few showers into western scotland and west in northern ireland and maybe western england, most will be dry, chilly to start wednesday, low single figures potentially in the north—east scotland. on wednesday morning, we

start on a chilly but bright note, lots of sunshine for a while and showers in the west will become more widespread, spreading east and in the afternoon we will see torrential downpours with hail and thunder mixed in. hit and downpours with hail and thunder mixed in. hitand miss, some may miss them all together, others may get more than one. temperature wise in the strong sunshine, i4 get more than one. temperature wise in the strong sunshine, 14 or 15, closer to ii or 12 were the showers, long, feeling cool. into the early hours of thursday and showers continue but more confined to western areas, a chilly start to thursday and the showers will become more confined to scotland, northern england, northern ireland and maybe the north—west wales so another mixture of sunshine and april showers but not as frequent as wednesday with the best sunshine in the south—east with highs of 14 or 15, but those will fall of into the end of the week. in the south—west, this area of low pressure, uncertainty as its intensity and extent. at the moment it looks like

england and wales looking to see the rest of the west scotla nd scotland and northern ireland will have a mixture of sunshine and heavy showers and a cooler day, look at those temperatures, 9—11 or 12, that isa those temperatures, 9—11 or 12, that is a little below the seasonal average and we hold onto this cooler, fresher weather into the weekend. low pressure always nearby, weekend. low pressure always nearby, we could continue to the showers and some of these will be quite heavy but also a little bit of sunshine too. we will notice the temperatures lower than what we had last weekend. goodbye from the. —— goodbye from me. this is newsday on the bbc.

i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: a very special relationship — presidents trump and macron hit it off, but while it's been friendly so far, the iran nuclear deal is still up in the air. if iran threatens the us in any way, they will pay a price like few countries have ever paid. after the toronto van attack and a dramatic arrest, 25—year—old alek minassian appears in court charged with 10 counts of murder. i'm kasia madera in london. also in the programme: malaria is tearing through malaysia, but in the forests of borneo, could technology be the answer?