he's not the only murderer to have been so. an expert on the darker corners of the web will help us understand the weird incel sub—culture. hello there. more political embarrassment for the home secretary today. she had to answer for herself at a commons committee, with difficult questions about whether she knew immigration enforcement was causing injustices, and if not, why not when warnings were given as early as 2016. she also faces the challenge of sorting out the home office. she accepted a culture change needs to occur. if you were writing a memo to amber rudd on what to do now, you'd have a lot to discuss — should concessions to the windrush arrivals be extended to many more people? should there be a full amnesty for anyone here, say, ten years ago? that was reportedly an argument in cabinet yesterday. should the hostile environment policy be watered down, abandoned, or simply applied with more discretion? and then, your memo would need to address the rawest issue of all — should there be a new home secretary to implement it all? it is, after all, often better for there to be a fresh start. well, our policy editor, chris cook,

hasn't written a memo on it, but he has made this report for us. the windrush generation are britons who arrived in britain from british colonies before 1973. why have they suffered so much at the hands of the british government? that was the key question today for amber rudd, the home secretary, which was grilled by the home affairs select committee. can i ask you when you became aware of the problem? i became aware over the past few months i would say, that there was a problem of individuals that i was seeing. this was covered, as far as i could see, from newspapers and mp5 bringing it forward, anecdotally, over the past three or four months and i became aware that there was a potential issue. i do deeply regret i did not see it as more than individual cases

that had gone wrong that needed addressing. i did not see it as a systemic issue until very recently. one former immigration minister is puzzled at how long it took to notice. i think the home office and government has handled the situation appallingly also they must have seen the media reports, they had letters coming from mps, ministers would reply to the letters, the immigration minister and home secretary, they could see a pattern of what was happening that people who had spent virtually all their adult lives here, giving so much to our economy and public services were being treated in a really disgraceful way. in any case, earlier today the foreign office confirmed that... in april 2016 of course the home secretary was theresa may.

we also learned that some huge questions remain unanswered, like how many people had been wrongly imprisoned. we need to know if the state has wrongly incarcerated people. i agree with that but how far back would you suggest we should go? we certainly need to know about the last few years and i think to go back as far as is reasonably possible. we don't know how many people have lost health care. it is difficult for us to work out whether anybody in individually has been effected by applying for support in a hospital and has or has not had the services they need given to them. there is a lot we still don't know about. we don't know how many britons have been locked up or are stuck, exxaro farfrom home, as a result

of this scandal. —— exiled. we don't know who knew what, when, in the home office and we don't know what it will take to fix this, that is to say we don't know if it is possible for the home office to be as aggressive as it has historically been what they can do administrative tweaks to make things work or whether the department need overnight will change at the way it looks at the world. consider the demands being made people to prove they have lived in britain since 1973. we have heard people are being asked for four different pieces of proof for each year. do you have four pieces of proof as to where you were living in 1989? millions of people are affected by this guilty until proven innocent attitude including, now, eu migrants. so the home secretary has called for a culture change in her department but she would not say to date who is to blame for the current home office

culture. her, or her long serving predecessor? we'll discuss all this in a moment. but meanwhile, decisions have to be ta ken about individual cases. home office officials have been told to think about the individual, not the policy. well, interesting cases that are distinct from windrush are emerging. and here is one now. we've taken a tough line on immigrants as a nation, but what about asylum seekers? we've spoken to one today. she's 19 and lives in bristol. her application for asylum was refused but is being appealed. she came here as a child age 1a from the democratic republic of congo. a new rule which took effect only this year prompted the home office to tell her that she was not allowed to sit her a—levels this summer. under the rule, new conditions were imposed on some young asylum seekers on their right to study, even if they'd already been in school for years. these cases are often twisty

and on monday the woman you're about to see was granted a temporary reprieve to continue her studies thanks to the high court, no less. being an asylum seeker, she fears persecution if she returns home. because of that we are not showing herface or naming her. she has been speaking to phil kemp. i remember my headteacher used to call me a superstar. because at that time my english was very, very bad. the only thing i could say was ok. now, you know, i can speak and, yeah. i have won an award in my college for being, for having the good conduct and good behaving in the school. so when did you first hear that there might be a problem with you going to college and sitting in your exams? so i was just preparing my exam, my first exam for health and social care. then reading the letter was like, why? what is this?

my college was like, no, why they ask you to stop just on the way like this? you have like three more months to finish. my teachers were really upset, especially my health and social care teacher because she's the one who was like helping me for my exam. i started health and social care with a grade c and now i'm aiming b or a. so she was like, why? why now? why? but we didn't have a choice really. i'm not a student who is making trouble or being in the police or those kinds of things. i'm really polite. if you tell me stop, i will stop. if you tell me carry on, i will carry on. and telling me to stop studies for me was a bad decision ever in my life. i've been waiting for four years already which is long. and to tell someone to hold on with her studies after four years for me is a wrong decision. because of this situation i think my grade will come down, will drop down, which is a bad thing for me. that is one case from bristol.

we did ask for the home office to comment and they told us that... "the case is ongoing and if someone disputes the study restriction on their immigration bail, they can contact the home office to consider removing the study restriction". so let's take stock of some of this with two mps, chris philp for the conservatives and naz shah, labour mp and a member of the home affairs select committee which quizzed amber rudd this afternoon. good evening. let's start with that case. what is your view that clearly a rigorous enforcement of the rules and a new rule that says you cannot study here if you are an asylum seeker on appeal, you can't

take your exams, does that seem fair? i think you need to look at the individual circumstances to make that judgment. if somebody is in the country illegally, and i'm not saying that if the case with the one we just saw, i think it is reasonable to say that access to things like education which is very expensive should be restricted. if somebody comes illegally, why should taxpayers pay for them to receive services question that case was on appeal and after high court review that decided that while somebody lodges an appeal they should have access to education and i must say, at first glance, it seems to be reasonable that while somebody appealed they should be able to access education. but that was not a windrush case. this is the point, that now we have had a glimpse of what hostile environment means, we are seeing that there are going to be a lot of different examples of this being applied and i'm interested in whether you are uncomfortable to see that we have said to someone who has been in school, you have to months, you can't study any more.

it sounds like the high court decided that the rule had not been correctly applied and my instinct is to agree. you would not want an average asylum seeker to have to lawyer up and get judicial review at the high court to enforce that. if the application was still live and had not been finally decided that you wouldn't, but if somebody was here illegally or had their application definitively rejected i think it is reasonable to say they cannot access services. and talking about the wider issue of illegal immigration, of course the windrush case are not illegal, but if somebody is here illegally it is quite probably do not access benefits or services and ultimately they face deportation. that is only there because without that the immigration rules... i'm interested in your view as to how far we should extend concessions, a non—hostile environment? to everybody? what would be your view of this case? this is not the only case, my constituency deals with many case every week and i can tell you the of mistakes we get, this asylum speaker having to go

to judicial review the watcher been a simple case clearly hasn't worked. what it demonstrates is, in addition to a windrush, it is notjust an issue of windrush but actual systemic failure within the home office in dealing with cases like this. do you agree that we do have to enforce some kind of border and that means you have to be tough on some people who simply are not allowed to be here? even though their cases might be deeply sympathetic. i agreed that the law must be applied but there is the essence of the law and the letter of the law and ultimately these are people we are talking about them individual people, and we should be looking at them as an individual. in this case the court has upheld the right and rightfully so. out of all of this, do you think hostile environment is a policy that can survive?

if you mean for people who are here illegally we should take them back to where they should be and we do not give them access to benefits i think that's a reasonable approach. it's about how you treat people while you work out if they are here illegally because we don't know if a random person is here illegally or not and we have been treating everybody as hostile until we are sure they are allowed here, can that survive are not? i think we need to be much more careful about the way those determinations are made and the speed. they windrush cases which are tragic and wrong sure we need to be faster and in some cases use more discretion. i have had probably about 1000 cases, i had one windrush case before this publicity and one subsequently, it was clear to me looking at that that the more synthetic and quicker —— it was clear to me looking

at that that the more sympathetic and quicker approach should have been taken and that is one lesson we can and should learn. amber rudd seemed to not use the word hostile environment, she called it compliant environment? what she actually said is she does still not know all the facts. she still does not know if we have targets, regional targets which have contributed to this hostile environment, her minister did not know, these are things that there is a lot more to come down the track as yvette said today, this is not the last we have heard of windrush or the culture in the home office which has led to this out right... do you accept there has to be a certain toughness? if bailiffs will all nice people they would never collect any money from anyone they visited. what is the policy about how you enforce? we are not talking about enforcing the border, we are talking about people who were legally invited here, who are british nationals and what the home office has done is treated them with indignity. you have to work at people

are british are not at some point? these are british nationals who were told and subsequently and they have been, there are people who had to go to food banks. we heard to a lady today who had to sell her car and her own belongings to be able to survive while she was being determined she was british or not. this was a british women. in those windrush cases i agree those decisions should have been taken instantaneously but in cases where somebody is here illegally and it's clear they should not be able to access... the big issue is how this was not noticed earlier. ten days ago the government did not want to meet caribbean leaders on this, the foreign office is nonsense 2016, they told the home office so they must have known, there must have been home office cases, mps knew, the guardian had been reporting it for six months. if the press office has missed it the guardian writer is married tojoejohnson who is in government. it is not the case the government

did not know about it, the government knew about it and they thought it didn't matter until the press went haywire, that's it. it is categorically not the case that the government does not think it matters, they think it matters hugely and that is why they responded so quickly with compensation offers, with a new task force and cases being settled in weeks... it's because the press made a fuss... what amber rudd said today is she had seen individual cases. that had been flagged by the press but it was all me a half ago she realised it was systemic. and i understand because i have dealt with about 1000 cases in the last two years and i have a two windrush cases, one of which was in the last week. when you have had that many out of 1000 you might conclude it's not a systemic argument.

you can see why it is wrong, but we have apologised and we will fix it. the home office does not have the system... does amber rudd how to resign? diane abbott has called for that resignation but this has been historic, this was flagged up today, we sought the assessment which was signed by the ministers in her department where all this was written out in 2015 and policy document. these ministers are signing documents without reading them but the impact communities and people. it is interesting you're not seeing she has to go now, thank you both but i want to ask about one other thing, anti—semitism. len mcclusky in the new statesman has written an interesting article today seeing a lot of labour mps are using this to attackjeremy corbyn. he names names, chris leslie, do you agree with len mcclusky and do you believe it's helpful?

you'll have to forgive me but i've not read the article because i am busy with windrush today, lent is entitled to his opinion but let's be clear what jeremy has said, he has met withjewish leaders and they have agreed steps forward and i think that's the right way to proceed... do you think people likejohn woodcock are smearing thejeremy corbyn, do you think it's helpful for len mcclusky to make that charge while relations are being repaired? anyone suggesting smears are not doing it injeremy corbyn's name, what jeremy corbyn is saying and what he has been clear about is here is a road map we need to go down and it's the right one to work with the jewish community and the board of deputies. thank you very much both. in large parts of england, there are local and mayoral

elections a week tomorrow. the day will be seen as an electoral test, the first big one since the general election. in the national opinion polls, the two main parties are running at about 40% each. it is quite tight, and the vote next week may help extrapolate if that's really where things stand. but there is one part of the country, where party support is way out of line with the rest. we've always known london is a nation unto itself economically, but politically it has often been a bellwether. yet in last year's election it had a 21 point lead for labour. does that foretell a really bad day for london conservatives next week? well, our political editor nick watt has been looking at a most extraordinary fight in the capital. yes, it's that time of year again. leaflets are piling up on your doormat. tranquil evenings are being disturbed by canvassers as candidates pledge to act as your champion. is it ok if i leave a leaflet

with you so you can know about our candidates? it all has a familiar feel. the sun is at last shining, the days are lengthening so it must be spring polling time. but is something afoot in the year when all of london goes to the polls? across england, the two main parties are even stevens but in the capital city labour is hoping to make gains after its success in last year's general election. so is london now its own unique electoral ecosystem ? labour has a number of advantages in london. it includes the fact that lots of groups, obviously the young, are disproportionately represented here.

a significant number of minority ethnic voters, they also tend more than the average to vote labour. and if you add to that sense that lots of younger people, even those were quite well off, can't get on the housing ladder, feel disgruntled by that and perhaps by austerity, all of these are conditions that are rather good for labour in london but it is worth remembering that in the rest of the country the reverse might be true. so london is almost like an island, a political island now. back in the 1960s when the first elections took place under the current system of london councils, there was a predictable pattern. a two horse race — one up one year, one down the other. and then signs of a london doughnut — redder in the middle, bluer in the outer ring. inner—city voters strongly dependent on social housing lean towards labour, whilst home owners in outer london metro—land lean towards the tories.

as the decade went by, yellow also arrived on the scene. but in recent years the doughnut has evolved. labour has nibbled into the outer ring of the doughnut as younger and bame voters move into the suburbs. and now labour has its sights on expanding its hold on the outer doughnut and it also hopes to strengthen its position on the centre by turning the blue strongholds of wandsworth and westminster to red. in the years when she bestrode the land, margaret thatcher hailed wandsworth as a tory beacon for the way it pioneered the outsourcing of services and set ultralow local tax. so how could the jewel in margaret thatcher's crown be on the verge of falling into labour hands? this is what we're up against. we're up against a council which was margaret thatcher's favourite council for a reason. this was the testing ground of thatcherism. the sorts of policies they rolled

out here they rolled out across the country and it has been a tory citadel now for four decades. if we take wandsworth, it will send shock waves through the entire conservative party machine. it's a saturday morning and supporters of momentum, the group set up to defend jeremy corbyn's leadership of the labour party, are preparing to take their message door to door. veterans and younger activists are talking of change. i actually canvassed here for the first time onjune the 8th last year. i kind of was listening tojeremy corbyn and really getting into him and understanding the things he was fighting for were things that mattered to me and my friends and my family. and i kind of decided onjune the 8th that i could not complain if i didn't do anything and i couldn't celebrate if i didn't

do anything so i came to battersea. it's not always been such a happy story for labour in wandsworth after momentum activists were recorded calling for the removal of the party's group leader on the council. i just want to say a quick thank you to owenjones because he has been an incredible friend to this campaign. for now, all is sweetness and light, at least in public. but momentum has a warning for those who may not have bought into the new leadership. you join any club and you support the policy of the club. you know, you don'tjoin the cricket club because you want to play football. so assuming that all of the labour candidates are backing the labour party policy on housing, on education, on local services, on restoring dignity to local government, which has been emasculated under the tories, i am sure labour candidates will be behind that and we will be right behind them. in private, senior labourfigures

believe that winning a borough famous for low council tax is a formidable challenge. the man running the local conservative campaign admits his party is facing a tough fight. this time labour really is breathing down your neck. yes. i think we've got a real fight on our hands here. it's going to mean that every tory voter has to go out and vote. and that is what we are putting across on the doorstep, that this is probably the most important election wandsworth has had since we took control in 1978. on a weekday morning, the conservative minister for london is working hard and jojohnson is hammering home his party's record on low council tax. we are getting the message out that if you want high—quality local authority services delivered at low council tax, you have got to vote conservative on may the 3rd. if you look at wandsworth, the average band d council tax is about £700.

over the road in neighbouring lambeth, labour—run lambeth, it is almost twice that much and the quality of services is simply not as good over there either. so the tories hope that an election—winning formula that has worked over four decades will rebuff the labour challenge. if labour wants to sweep along the river thames with the corbyn revolution capturing councils that eluded the party even in the electorally successful years of tony blair, then winning wandsworth is an important goal. and labour's ambitions don't stop there. jeremy corbyn is looking across the river. he has his eyes set on westminster city council which has never been in labour hands since its creation in its present form in the 1960s. party insiders acknowledge that would be a tall order but victory here would mean that the land around the palace of westminster would turn red.

to win this once mighty tory bastion, some unlikely places would have to turn red. leafy, picturesque little venice is one such ward within the city of westminster that labour would need to win and the changes here tell a bigger story about london. everything is more fluid now. so it's true, everybody who lived in these houses in the past, almost without exception, the odd eccentric might have not done so, would have voted conservative as they saw it in their own interest and people over there in the tower blocks would have voted labour similarly, though for different reasons. these days there will be plenty of people who live over in the tower blocks who think, well, actually, perhaps the conservatives and theresa may are a better bet for me. i rather support their more conservative nature.

whereas there are plenty of progressives and sort of affluent people who live here who think, well, you know, we are generally in favour of a change to society so this is our kind of party these days. we live in complicated and fluid times. if london is turning into a modern city state set apart from the rest of the country, then what of remain supporters? just over 60% of londoners voted to stay in the eu, possibly providing pickings for the most unequivocally pro—eu of the main parties. i think since the referendum, to be honest, i'm an eu citizen and i did not get a chance to vote unfortunately. and i got very frustrated with the result, obviously. i have been here close to 30 years, married to a brit, and it has been really frustrating to feel like, from one day to the next, suddenly i was a guest, i was no longer a member of the community. i had to justify my presence, or it felt that way, anyway. for vince cable, brexit is a mixed blessing. the party fears it may lose seats in leave—voting sutton, but it has high hopes of challenging the tories in the remain strongholds

of kingston and richmond. some people, looking at the bigger picture, brexit, there is an issue for some people, a lot of european nationals are allowed to vote in these elections who cannot vote in general elections or referendums. and i think that is a significant factor in some areas. the tories‘ minister for london, a passionate remain supporter in his divided family, thinks talk of a continuing remain roar in london is overblown. there are angry remainers in this city, aren't there? there is a supporter. there are angry remainers in the city and they are punishing your party, aren't they? remain, leave — residents want high quality services, low council taxes and that is what a local authority that is run by a conservative administration is going to bring them and that is what they are voting about on may the 3rd. the conservatives might be sticking resolutely to local issues but there is another party that sees the unique challenges facing london

as fertile territory for their agenda. i think we appeal to london voters because we listen to them, we put their concerns at the top of the agenda and we are leading the way on the key issues that face people in london. so whether that is issues of air pollution here in camden, whether it is the issue of housing demolitions in lambeth, it is the greens that are standing up for local residents and it is the greens who are setting the agenda. voters on both sides of this river will create the news on polling day when attention is focused on london. but the question will be, will that tell us a story about the country as a whole, or will it tell us that london is a place apart? it might have felt like all of the candidates were interviewed. but for instructions on how you can get a full list of the candidates in london's local elections, visit our website, bbc.co.uk/newsnight. you will have seen our reports

on the bullying of staff in the house of commons — clerks as they are called — by mps for whom they work. these reports by chris cook and lucinda day have had an impact, and chris is here to fill us in on the latest. what has the response been? we had a speech tonight from andrea leadsom, the leader of the house of commons, who is at the forefront of pushing for a response to our reports but she confirmed something we learned earlier this week that dame laura cox, a formerjudge, will be leading an independent enquiry into the specific allegations we raised and that there is a cultural problem with bullying in the house. it will not name names of mps, we will wait to see if that line holds. we have spoken to a lot of staff since this came out, that the inquiry will be led by dame laura and it would not

name names and actually staff are more upbeat than i had expected. basically she has a very good reputation, she has been given the flexibility within this to make recommendations about how to deal with past offences by mps. may be bygones will not be allowed to be bygones but we will wait and see. thank you. while most of us have not known the word ‘incel‘, it has been very much in the lexicon of two recent killings. one accused killer is alek minassian, the man who it is claimed took a ryder hire van and fatally struck ten pedestrians with it in toronto on monday, also injuring 1a others. in a facebook post, he made reference to an "incel rebellion", and he paid tribute to another man, a killer called elliot rodger, who identified as an incel. rodger killed six people in santa barbara county in 2014. incel refers to involuntary celibate — a misogynistic cult of men who can't get sex, and believe

women are to blame, and, in its most extreme and dangerous form, that violence and rape is justified. the strange combination of inadequacy and potential violence has been most forcefully expressed in an online group on reddit and was banned last year as it breached the anti—hate speech policy of the platform. but let's take a deeper into that world with angela nagle, who's written a book called ‘kill all normies: the online culture wars from lichan and tumblr to trump and the alt—right‘. she joins us from dublin. good evening. tell us about this word and when it started to be used and when incel consciousness cropped up as it were. i started looking at this roughly about eight years ago. it is something that has been around for a while and in fact i had stopped writing about it because i felt i had more less said all i wanted to and i did not expect that it would remain so relevant. is it political? do you see it as that or is it all psychological and personal? i have seen it described in the last

few days as a political movement which i would say is not right. i think it is closer to a subculture orjust a set of forums, even a sensibility, kind of an outlook on the world. even though a lot of the content of what is on there is very dark and we have seen people quoting from that, there is kind of a therapeutic quality to it also. guys go on the forums and talk about their frustrations. it is more like an online culture and an organised political movement. this is interesting and the question i want to know is that it it always unhealthy? you have groups who establish online, whether they are whippet lovers or people who are fed up with their car because it breaks down, they can get together and they get something out

of bonding and sharing problems. there have always been men who felt inadequate or don't get on with women so it is always unhealthy or does it have a healthy side? it is not always unhealthy but there is no question that a lot of the ideas you find in these kinds of forums are very preoccupied with a hierarchy and i guess if you go on that you are not going to come out with a more positive view of society awe of women certainly. i suppose if you are mutually venting your rage about the world, in the end, inevitably, some people are going to become vengeful. i would caution against... something like this is so obviously morally repugnant to everyone that i would be a little bit

concerned at the use of it, in a way, to tar anything that the particular wants to tar. for example, you see a lot of talk about it being an example of toxic masculinity and then it turns into, something must be done about toxic masculinity, but toxic masculinity is like a tautology, everybody is against that because by definition it is toxic. what the term is implying is that masculinity itself is a problem that needs to be wiped out. lots of the masculine virtues that most people recognise, heroism and the protection of women and so on, are not what is on display here. i think it is one of these things where people who have all kinds

of other agendas can use something that is so tragic like this to make sense of all kinds of things ought to stretch the term to an absurd degree. thank you very much, very interesting. a quick look at the papers before we think about going. the daily telegraph leading on the article from len mccluskey about mps criticising jeremy corbyn. the guardian leads on immigration. the times, long—term drug use is linked in thousands of cases. and the picture of meghan markle on the front cover. this is the headline in the i. that's almost it for tonight. emily

will be in the chair tomorrow. but we are going to end with some live music. the senegalese singer and guitarist baaba maal is in the uk at the moment, doing some solo performances. he's been keeping busy touring and has been collaborating on the original score of the black panther movie with composer ludwig goransson. tonight, he's singing a version of his track called ‘traveller‘ with cheikh ndoye. good night. music: 'traveller' by baaba maal. hello there. it was a classic april

weather today. sunshine and showers. some heavy with hail and thunder. bigjillani some heavy with hail and thunder. big jillani and less clouds developing over the country. —— cumulonimbus. these showers will move away through the overnight becoming confined to scotland and northern ireland. elsewhere a reasonable night. temperatures will be the to single figures. it will be bright tomorrow with some sunshine and then we suit telmex —— then we should see some cloud moving. we could see 15 or 16, maybe 17 celsius in the south—east. a bit cooler where the blustery showers at the further north. to the south—west low

pressure will encourage into south—western parts. elsewhere, a bright start with lots of sunshine and the rain will move northwards and the rain will move northwards and is was. it will mainly affect the north parts of england and wales. the far north should stay fine. a chilly day for much. 8— 12 degrees, it will feel cool. into the weekend, sunshine and showers across much of the country. further south than these, particularly south—east england should see longer spells of rain moving into sunday. it will be windy as well. he was the weekend in more detail. friday's rain and cloud clearing, but it should hang back, a little bit grey. elsewhere, a chilly start with showers developing. david hail in northern ireland and the high ground. temperatures will be

about 9— 12 celsius. a cool start with sunshine around on sunday. one 01’ with sunshine around on sunday. one or two showers further north. low pressure moving to the south—east, so windy and wet, and it will feel chilly as well with that rain and wind. gusts will get up to 50 miles an hour, so it could be disruptive weather. the best of the weather on sunday will be the further north and west. that is your latest weather. good night. welcome to our uk viewers. you are watching french president macron as he gives his final press conference at george washington university in dc. he is talking about the relationship between france and the united states. translation: and together with a member of the house of representatives i went to the mall today, i also went to arlington yesterday and paid my tributes to

the unknown soldier and to the kennedy family. lastly, i had a number of meetings including at george washington university today. i had george washington university today. ihada george washington university today. i had a town hall meeting with students, and all of