on a bbc tv special. the group said when they went back into the recording studio it was as if they'd just been away on a short holiday. that's a summary of the news, meet the author is in half an hour, followed by a full news bulletin at midnight — but now on bbc news it's time for newsnight with kirsty wark. tonight, after a seven—hour wait, amber rudd has finally spoken up by tweets to explain herself over a leaked memo which she claims she never saw and which contradicts her testimony to mp5. the document confirmed there were national targets on forced returns promised to her last year and amber rudd's got that memo. she's still in her post, but a weekend is a long time in politics. the shadow immigration minister is here to make it even longer. also tonight, no nuclear weapons in the korean peninsula sounds great, but beyond the hugs is that a victory for peace or tactical advantage for the north koreans. the north korean government is looking to have a different kind of relationship

on the korean peninsula. part of that relationship could be pushing both the chinese and the united states out of influence on the korean peninsula. should we believe the promises of a secretive police state anyway? we meet katie morgan davies born into a moaist cult and kept hidden for 30 years by her father. she suffered decades of beatings and psychological abuse before she managed to escape. i was very angry with him, for having deprived me of that... of my life, basically. but then i realised that, in time, that that anger was only harming me, and it was making me ill. good evening. in the last hour the home secretary amber rudd has broken an afternoon and evening of radio silence to respond by tweet to the publication today

by the guardian of a leaked memo sent to her last year which made clear her department had set targets for the removal of immigrants. the headline tonight — she's not going anywhere. more on the tweets in a moment. first, the memo, it was sent lastjune by the head of the immigration enforcement agency, and copied to ms rudd, and it made clear the agency had set a target of achieving 12,800 enforced returns in 2017—2018. it added that doing so "will move us along the path towards the increased performance on enforced returns, which we have promised the home secretary earlier this year." the problem of course is that ms rudd had told a different story to mps earlier this week. the question now, is she now hanging on by her fingernails? i'm joined by our political editor nick watt. deconstruct the tweets? a seven—hour wait, amber rudd says

she will make a statement to the commons on monday. the second was a repeat of what she said yesterday, i wasn't aware of specific removal targets. the third, i didn't see the leaked document although it was copied to my office, as many documents. the problem with that, the memos talk about these removal targets. we had the home secretary these earlier this year. what this suggests is at the very best, amber rudd is not across the work of her department, which is a difficult position for any secretary of state... especially on immigration? indeed. and amber rudd is spending a lot of time with lawyers coming up with very carefully worded statements. she's facing the fight of her life to get through this. and this fight has been contributed to during the last 36 hours? i am sure she regrets being critical of the home office because there has been a series of leaks from her department to the guardian newspaper. but this kicked off on wednesday when amber rudd appeared to be blindsided and they select committee

when yvette cooper challenged her on the voluntary removals. this is their exchange. and targets for removals, when were they set? we don't have targets for removals. but you did? i don't... what are you referring to? you've just heard from the previous evidence that the home office, there are regional targets for net removals? i didn't hear the testimony, i'm not sure what shape that might be in. but if you're asking me are there numbers of people we expect to be removed, that's not how we operate. that turned out to be accurate and yesterday amber rudd was brought before the commons with an urgent question and she distanced herself from those targets. the immigration arm of the home office has

been using local targets for internal performance management. these were not published targets against which performance was assessed, but if they were used inappropriately, then i am clear that this will have to change. two things, what is her calculation and what is theresa may's calculation. amber rudd's calculation wants to fight on and clear up the mess. what is going on in her mind is she has accepted a lot of the theresa may agender for immigration, which i imagine personally, she is not comfortable with. but the reason for that, going forward and negotiating immigration for brexit, she would like to get the student numbers out of the net migration target. theresa may, i have been speaking to people in the last 48 hours who know theresa may's mind and they are scathing about amber rudd's handling of the home office. they say theresa may

had an iron grip. her chief of staff is worth criticised for being control freaks, but she made sure these things didn't happen and they have happened under amber rudd. but the raw calculation for the prime minister, if amber rudd goes, that leaves theresa may very exposed. we will wait until monday. well, we did invite the home office to join us tonight, but nobody was available. i'm joined, though, from salford by labour's shadow immigration minister, afzal khan. thank you forjoining us. what do you make of those tweets? i am baffled, i have been following this from the first day and the home secretary is coming to the parliament and every time she says something and then a contradiction comes out. she has made three statements, being before the select committee and there has been two prime minister's questions on this as well and i think

the time has passed, she should resign. immigration policy is notoriously difficult and labour leaders have had their own troubles with it. ed miliband had cups printed saying control immigration, one of his pledges. and in 2007, hostile environment was used before the tories. what somebody said a decade ago is not what is happening today, the question is what is happening today? what we are seeing is british citizens paying the price for this hostile policy of immigration. that is what is at the heart of this and what is happening, the home secretary is trying to protect the prime minister. the prime minister was the architect of this and the home secretary has been carrying on with this and the british citizens are paying the price. do you believe she didn't see the memo? then she is incompetent.

it is serious when you have british citizens under threat of deportation when they have been working and building this country up and now they are asking to make them pay £55,000, or they lose theirjobs and become homeless. how can this be acceptable under any government? you know that immigration is a big issue. when you have asylum seekers who haven't met the criteria and are not being deported and are refusing to go, what would a labour government do about that? would you give them amnesty would you put people out of the country who are here illegally and without having reason to be here? the issue is how can we have a policy where british citizens are paying the price. this is not what the british people want? what would labour's immigration policy be? we would have a fair immigration policy which doesn't end

up with british people paying the price. at the moment those people who have been here over 50 years and contributed to the life of great britain and making it a great country, they are at the end of their life and are paying this prize. the fear around a large number of people, how can that be acceptable. would you set a limit the immigration? we need a policy that works for britain. at the moment you see chaos around the home office. thank you very much indeed. it's almost as if they were friends, rather than sworn enemies. the pictures of the unpredictable and hostile dictator kim jong—un joking with and embracing the south korean president moon jae—in today were almost as unexpected as the announcement that both leaders would work with the united states and china this year to declare an official end to the korean war. at one point apparently kim joked that north korea's early morning missile launches had likely awakened moon numerous times and promised

not to do it any more. unprecedented symbolism of peace, for sure. but is the promise to work towards the complete denuclearisation of the korean peninsula to be believed? here's our diplomatic editor, mark urban. it was a day freighted with symbolism, starting with a step across korea's ceasefire line. kim jong—un, became the first north korean leader to visit the south. and with his arrival came the prospect of an end to the peninsula's war psychosis and sabre rattling. what we saw today was the two korean leaders saying they are willing to do anything to prevent war on the korean peninsula. and i think what president moon did was to get north korea committed enough to say that he can come with enough of a package to president trump to deliver that to say that i can essentially convince president trump to at least prevent some kind of military war or conflict for at least two, three years, that's remaining in president trump's

first administration. today's agreement affirmed the principle of north and south determining the destiny of the korean nation on their own accord. china and the us, take note. it's about military confidence building measures. look forward to balanced economic growth and co—prosperity — spreading some of the south's wealth northwards. committed the two sides to end the current armistice, working towards a permanent and solid peace regime on the korean peninsulas. and it set the common goal of realising, through complete denuclearisation, a nuclearfree korean peninsula. north korea then, is offering to end its state of war with the south with a peace treaty, expand economic ties and move oh, so slowly, probably, towards denuclearisation. the question for western countries is whether they are prepared to accept what will, in effect, be a freeze

in north korea's nuclear status, rather than complete disarmament, in return for peace breaking out on the korean peninsula. i think we can be relatively relaxed about the timeline for denuclearisation. moreover, i think time plays very much in ourfavour and in the south korean‘s favour. which is that the more north korea opens up to the world, the greater appetite there will be for north koreans for the kind of prosperity that south koreans experience, for the kind of political freedoms that south koreans experience. there have been false dawns before, like in 2008 when north korea blew up this key facility as part of a previous nuclear deal. so can kim and the south korean president moon, prevent this one unravelling in the same way as those previous agreements? i think the most important

difference in this particular agreement that we should not under estimate, is the cooperation he's showing with south korea. and i think that is the most significant difference. what you see here is that north korea is making very, very clear that he is absolutely leaving china and all the other powers out and in fact that he is willing to cooperate with the united states, but that he is doing that very closely through south korea. and this is really the significant difference from all the previous agreements. among today's symbolic acts was the inevitable tree—planting. south korea's president moon is a moderate, who has long—called for the benefits of dialogue. but was he playing soft cop to donald trump's hard? and did america's squeeze on the north make all this possible? they have allowed south korea to lead on the policy to produce the possibility of a trump—kim summit to create the policy trade space for what any agreement might look like. to be our interlockers

with the north koreans, but also the substant of definers of what a policy would look like. and that president trump is empowering and incentivising and supporting an american ally to take a lead in solving a major national security problem, again, i would not have bet my money on that. the white house today released photos of another handshake between kim and secretary of state designate, mike pompeo. the stage is set now for a summit with president trump and it's america's judgment that will now be critical to the success of this emerging process. so, how optimistic should we be that what happened today will bring real

change? john everard was the uk's ambassador to north korea from 2006 to 2008. catherine moon joins us from boston, a former state department official who is now a professor of asian studies at well as the college. —— wellesley college. she sits on the steering committee of america's national committee on north korea. good evening to you both, thank you for coming in. john everard, what is kimjong—un‘s culmination, do you think? this is the question nobody can answer, is he just tried to squeeze more money out of the south, split south korea away from the united states, and sow confusion in the international community? or is this really a change of heart? now, this is a conundrum for us all. north korea has cheated repeatedly in the past, the history of talks is littered with broken agreements, and everybody is approaching this with great care, great circumspection and some cynicism. 0n the other hand, if this is a change of heart if he is serious about stabilising the peninsula, it would be a pity to throw the olive branch back in his face.

now, catherine, you listened to what the two men had to say to each other on the border, and the language, i understand, that they were using, the words, were very interesting, tell me about that. well, i listened in, and i do speak korean and understand it, so it was helpful. it was very casual, meaning that, for koreans generally, formality is so important, especially between an elder statesman, an elder general like president moon of south korea, speaking with a younger person, could be like a son in terms of age. i think what mr moon did spectacularly was to give kim jong—un a sense of respect, a sense of space, and a generosity so that he could be himself, whatever that means. and kim, in return, many people would not know, when he signed the guestbook at the peace house, he talked

about a new era of peace, it was done in a very poetic language. and it had a lot of aspiration, and sort of incantation about moving forward in his text. so i think those are interesting aspects. you will have heard a contributor in the film saying that part of this might be to freeze china and america out of the korean peninsula, and of course at the moment as well russia and japan are nowhere in this. who do you think will be the key players in this going forward? we know there is a series of summits, next is donald trump, but who will matter in this move? i really don't think that the two koreas have any intention to freeze any power in the region or the united states out. there is a very simple reason why — if the north koreans, if north korea were to be rehabilitated into the international

society, if its economy is to be resurrected, china, japan, the united states, australia, western europe, canada, all these countries are going to be necessary, they are requirements for north korea to be able to get an economically and stand up on its feet. the south koreans will not and cannot burden that economic share. so in your view, then, who will be the key player? well, other than the two koreas, it is unthinkable that you can solve the problems of the peninsula without the active participation both of the united states and china. now, you ask the question, i think, because in the panmunjom declaration, it talks about the korean nation sorting its problems out by itself, which implies exclusion. that won't have gone down well in washington or beijing, for that matter, but somehow or another they have to give the big

players on board. and japan has a particular issue, japanese kidnapped in north korea, that is not a small issue for the japanese on the edge of this, butjapan does not want to be frozen out. definitely not, that was very clear in the conversations with shinzo abe and donald trump earlier this month. they talked a great deal about north korea. shinzo abe came away largely reassured, but of course he is a bystander, there is no shinzo abe and kimjong—un summit planned. so donald trump is claiming this very much for himself as being the big mover and shaker in this, and an american commentator, i think the new york times was saying that if he pulls it off, trump should get the nobel peace prize. what do you think, in terms of his father reneging on previous deals, what would make a difference this time?

right now, the big difference in terms of this summit is that kim jong—un came to the south — in the past, the south korean presidents had gone to the north, in 2000 and 2007. this is a big deal for a "hermit kingdom" leader to come out into a capitalist, cosmopolitan society, ie the south. numbertwo, for kimjong—un, this is a huge coming out party, and it is important for him, because he sees itself as the leader —— himself as the leader of a nuclear state, and he has used nuclear weapons to earn them that kind of stature. let me quickly say, the problem is that kim jong—un things, if he puts away his nuclear weapons, the americans will as well, is that a naive view or not even the truth? yes, the great phrase

that we all focused on in the joint declaration is "complete denuclearisation of the korean peninsula," which means, any north korean mind, notjust them giving up their weapons, but that nobody else is able to deliver a nuclear weapon to the peninsula. so that means the united states. that, of course, is not going to fly, there is no way washington will bow to that. thank you both very much indeed. it's impossible for most of us to imagine the hell of being born into a cult, imprisoned by its maoist leader, and kept from the outside world for 30 years, suffering violent and psychological abuse at his hands, and the hands of other cult members. katy morgan—davies was born in brixton in 1983, had no idea who her parents were, or what mothers and fathers actually were. she was named prem maopinduzi, meaning "love revolution", ironic for someone denied all normal physical and emotional affection. physical and emotional affection

for 30 years. she finally escaped after help from another prisoner, josie, in 2013 and was rescued by the palm cove society, a charity for vulnerable adults. now katy has been living free for five years. she has written her story — ‘caged bird'. you are here as a free person, katy. 0n the eve of publication, i went to the last house where she was held captive, it is the first time she has been back. this was the place in brixton from where she finally managed to escape. what are your overwhelming memories of that room? horror. would you live in this area again? might do, i liked the idea of living here is a free person. the workers‘ institute of marxism—leninism—mao zedong thought operated out of a series of houses in south london, where its leader, aravindan balakrishnan, known as ab or bala, who believed he was leader of the world with godlike powers, preyed on vulnerable young women, brainwashed them and kept them as slaves. the woman who turned out to be

katy‘s mother was one of them, but katy did not know this until her escape, by which time her mother had died. nor did she know that aravindan balakrishnan was their biological father until she had escaped. after katy‘s escape, balakrishnan was sentenced to 23 years for false imprisonment, child cruelty, assault and rape of two other of the cult members. this afternoon, i met katy and talk to her about her 30 year ordeal and how she has finally begun to live. my earliest memories are of violence, from my father to the other people in the house. and you also suffered violence as well. yes. what happened to you? i used to be beaten up for the slightest thing. if something was seen to be going against these guidelines, then i was beaten up.

you are not allowed to be ill, you never saw a doctor. no. and when you were little, you were sick, what happens when you were sick? i was made to eat my own vomit. one of the rules of the house was that nobody but ab could show you affection. that's right. and you couldn't touch anyone. no. what happened when you tried to show other women in the cult affection? they were told to threaten me, that they'd beat me up if i did. and they used to push me away. but he could touch you. yeah. what did he do? well, it was like twice a day, it was like a reward for doing as i was told, then he'd give me a clumsy hug, like that, which i did not like, but as i never had any other

affection, that was sort of something i looked forward to. you had no other terms of reference, you knew nothing outside. no. at what point, how young were you when you realised there was something not right about this? well, i find violence very abhorrent, and seeing him beating people up and threatening people all the time, it'sjust... and there was such an atmosphere of fear and hate in the house, no—one got along, and it just felt wrong. i wasn't told it was wrong, it just felt wrong. you found great solace in harry potter, what was it that you identified with, just that it was a fantasy, or was there something particular about harry potter himself? harry was living with his aunt and uncle, and it was a bit like my childhood, and he never got

a letter, and the dream that somebody would come and take him away. so that was kind of how i felt. at certain times, ab had to get you out of the house, and those were the times when you went to places like the zoo or the science museum. what did you think when you saw children running around with their parents and laughing and carrying on? 0h, ijust used to feel sad, i didn't know why i couldn't have that as well. tell me about the escape, what triggered it? by that time, i had managed to convince josie that things were not right, and she agreed to help me. and then you saw something on the six o'clock news. yes. it was about... it was an item about

forced marriages. and after the programme, there was a number, a helpline given. and josie had access to a phone. she bought a mobile in secret. and what to think about the man who calls himself ab now, the man that turned out, after dna testing, to be yourfather? i think he is a very sad person, really. and it is such a shame, because he could have been so much more, but he chose to be this nasty person. but i think i am right in saying that i read you have forgiven him, is that right? yes. why? i was very angry with him, for having deprived me of my life, basically. but then i realised that, in time, that anger was only harming me,

and it was making me ill. so what are you doing now with your life? i am hoping to study at university. in september, i'm enrolled on a foundation degree, and i want to study philosophy and sociology. why have you chosen those subjects? well, i have seen so much hatred and violence in my past, and i want to do my best to change that. i mean, no one person has all the answers, but i really want to do my best to make the world a better place, free of hatred between people and violence and bullying. katy morgan—davies speaking to me earlier. and if you are affected by any of the issues raised by that interview, you can go on line at bbc.co.uk/actionline for details

of organisations that can provide help. and crime stoppers can be contacted at any time on 0800 555111. that's it for tonight. coming up next, front row late, looking at conflict between the generations. but before we go, the royal baby disappointed social media today by not being called prince albert as we'd all hoped. 0n the other hand, he is called prince louis, and if he ever becomes king, he'd be king louis, a name that has some unfortunate associations for monarchists. so with a hat tip to disney, and recorded on thejungle book soundstage 51 years ago, we leave you with the other other king louis, as performed by louis prima. good night. # you see, it's true # an ape like me # can learn to be human too # 0h, oobee—doo

# i want to be like you # i want to walk like you...# his first codename was 0rphan, a man on his own. but in donald maclean, the soviet union had recruited one of the best spies it ever had in the west. his name, along with guy burgess and kim philby, became a byword for determined treachery. admired by his colleagues as a meticulous and brilliant upon that he was also a convinced ideologue. but one with a wayward, carousing spirit. decades