to sign and nda. staff is paid asked to sign and nda. is that a fair reading? it is a reading of it. tonight, for the first time, he explains why he left hisjob. first time, he explains why he left his job. from time to time you would hear yourself mimic and you thought is, is that really how he sees me? it removes the dignity and we all know that any job it removes the dignity and we all know that anyjob in the land has to have some dignity. we will talk through the implications of this new latest claim, which the speaker denies. also tonight: the customs conundrum. newsnight understands theresa may is working on a plan she hopes will win over both sides of the debate. i think members of parliament are all ears to make sure that there isn't a hard border on the island of ireland, but free and frictionless trade. we are less hung up frictionless trade. we are less hung up about what it is called, it is a question of what it does. and we recall may 1968, the paris

revolution that never was. molotov cocktails, petrol filled bottles, being showered on the police. stu d e nts being showered on the police. students were pulling up dirty great cobbles like these and hurling them at the police. but what was that all about, and what if anything was the lasting impact? we will leave no stone unturned. hello. few people think bullying in the workplace is ok any more, which is why a report on this programme last month about conditions at the house of com was so explosive. in case you have missed the story so far, it was... back on march eighth, newsnight‘s chris cook and lucinda day reported on specific allegations of bullying at the house of commons by several mps of house staff or clerks. those allegations included one against the speaker, john bercow. his one—time private secretary kate emms did not last one year in that post.

she was diagnosed with post—traumatic stress disorder. within days, as a result of our reporting, the leader of the house of commons, andrea leadsom, said there should be an independent inquiry. last week, retired judge laura cox was put in charge of that inquiry. but it was announced she would not be looking at specific cases. well, tonight we have another allegation of bullying against the speaker, john bercow. this time it's his private secretary before kate emms that is laying out accusations of uncontrolled anger and intimidation. his name is angus sinclair. what makes this extraordinary is that mr sinclair was moved out of the job back in 2010, and received a big pay—out at the time — far more than might be expected from redundancy alone. and he was asked to sign a non—disclosure agreement, an nda, preventing him from criticising his former employer. tonight, mr sinclair has chosen to break the terms of that nda by talking to us. john bercow strenuously denies all his allegations. our policy editor chris cook and newsnight‘s lucinda day brought us the original revelations. chris is with me. before we see the interview, give us some background on this case.

angus sinclair was an enormously popular figure within the house, we kept having people say to us, have you spoken to angus, because he was regarded as competent and a very genial, kind man, working as a private secretary for many years in the royal navy before hejoined the house. it's also worth bearing in mind, think about the payment attached to the nondisclosure agreement, £85,000 and it is public money, and it is extremely unusual that someone not only breaks a nondisclosure agreement, they do it in spectacular style on television. mr sinclair feels upset that this is still going on and he's doing this, taking the risk of reaching the nda because he feels we need to move this on. we started off by asking him how it was that he came to be the speaker's secretary. i was in the navy for about 30 years and very broadly sort of ten years in submarines, ten years staff and training people,

and about ten years doing other things. so in 2005 though... i came to the end of my time in the navy and had to find something to do, and there was an advertisement that attracted me and it was the job of speaker's secretary in the house of commons. so that was working for michael martin? it was, yes. this is a big job. there's a fair amount of pomp to it. but it means running the speaker's office too. and the speaker's secretary has a place in the chamber at the speaker's left hand, from where he can pass notes. whenjohn bercow was appointed to the role in 2009,

mrsinclairwas in his place waiting for him. so, how did you get on with the new speaker? i think our problem was that he would not communicate, it was as if we had to best guess what he wanted and that will always lead to mistakes. this happened a number of times and it seemed to be more frequent, and the speaker responded in a way that i can only say is a form of bullying and that is to show anger and to thump the table, to say that somebody has failed in front of others. it seemed to get more frequent, it became very difficult to try and communicate through that. and of course what builds up is a sort of spell of failure, we're not doing what we're meant to be doing, and clearly, you know, he's angry about it.

so that would get to you? it gets to you because you want to avoid that anger because sometimes, you know, he would denigrate you in a particular way through mimicking or "yet again" something has gone wrong. sometimes he would say in front of somebody who was working for you that, you know, your boss had failed, and that is quite hard. newsnight has spoken to witnesses to moments when these things happened, who confirmed this picture. mr sinclair has also shown us excerpts from his contemporaneous diary which logs what happens and when. so, his anger was a key part of all of this? yes, it seemed to be over—the—top anger. i'm not sure he was completely in control. the arms would wave around. there was one afternoon i was working at my desk and he came in, he was absolutely furious about something. he asked for some information from another part of the house and it had been very slow coming

and i prodded for an early resolution of this, and he knew that but he held me responsible. there was a tirade of how i'd let him down, it was quite the worst thing, a lot of bad language. suddenly his mobile phone, which he'd been holding, was flung on the desk in front of me and it broke into a lot of bits. it was a pretty dramatic moment, and he left the office shortly afterwards. it's an anger, a visible frustration. i didn't say it was thrown at me, i got hit with bits of it. so, you have described to us being undermined in front of your own staff, being shouted at, rages, the phone smashing. it must‘ve taken a toll on you. i couldn't see what he was after other than perhaps me moving on, and i found the temper and the sort of bullying method was...just lowered your horizons,

that's the worst thing about it, because it's demeaning. perhaps one of the worst aspects of it is from time to time you would hear yourself mimicked and your thought then is, "is that really how he sees me?" it removes the dignity and i think we all know that everyjob in the land has to have some dignity. well, i felt at the time that the dignity had been removed. you would walk to work with a heavy heart. the horizon suddenly was low. it was not a good feeling, it was a feeling of failure. former colleagues of mr sinclair have corroborated the toll that it

took on him. witnesses have also confirmed that he raised concerns with senior managers about what was being done to him. did you bring this to anyone's attention? yes, idid. i felt that i'm not getting this right, i need to bring it to the attention of my effective line manager, my boss, and that is the clerk of the house. so on a number of occasions i went to him and explained what had happened and i revealed to him that i didn't think i was producing the goods, but on the other hand i thought the speaker's behaviour, bullying in particular, was way over the top and it was making things difficult. now, as to complaint, there's no real route for the speaker's secretary to do that. the speaker appoints his personal staff. so you were in this grim position where you're unhappy, the speaker seems to be unhappy, and your line manager can't seem to do anything about this. how does it resolve itself? may 2010 election, the speaker re—elected, and re—elected as speaker by the house, and very shortly after that he asked if i could come through because he wanted to talk through a number of things.

i thought to myself, well, actually maybe this is a fresh start, we can actually have a chat and see how things in this new session can be better. and when i went in he was very charming and gracious, and i sat down, and he said almost immediately, "look, i'm going to redesign the office and make some changes and i don't have a part for you in that change. i have been working with the clerk of the house for some time on this matter." and so in a way i thought, well, actually that's quite a relief. so they gave you something they called a compulsory early retirement, which was... part of which was an £85,000 lump sum. yes. but there were conditions attached to that. i had to sign a nondisclosure agreement that i wouldn't make a complaint about my departure,

nor talk about it to the press. and why do you think they gave you that nda? that's quite an unusual thing for the house. i can only think it was because of the detail of what had happened. you know, the bullying and the manner of my leaving. in return for £86,250, mr sinclair had to agree to refrain from instituting any complaint against the employer and to make no public statement or comment relating to the employee's service with the house of commons. how do you feel about having signed that nondisclosure agreement? i thought at the time that it was keeping the good name of the house.

how do you feel about it now? it's in the public interest to know why i left. yes, it breaks that nondisclosure agreement, but it's the truth. there was bullying so this flat denial that it didn't happen is just not the case. and i don't think the house has done enough yet to solve it. it's right across the board and clearly it's an issue that must be resolved. this is not the only case involving mr bercow, who made a statement on this topic to the house last year. let me make it clear, there must be zero tolerance of sexual harassment or bullying here at westminster or elsewhere. newsnight has previously reported on the case of kate emms, mr sinclair's replacement. ms emms had to step away from the speaker's office after less than a year. her managers were told she had post—traumatic stress disorder. mr bercow has denied bullying her. we reported that managers in the house were told that kate emms, your successor, got post—traumatic stress disorder from thatjob. how did you respond to that? well, that really concerned me

because i think if i'd actually said to myself, "i'm not signing this nondisclosure agreement," or i'd put in a complaint, or i'd done what anybody should do if they've suffered a bullying incident is to speak out and get it resolved, then she might not have been put in that position. i had signed a cover—up in a cynical way and been paid to do it, and that's not a good feeling. following newsnight‘s previous reports, the house of commons has agreed to start an inquiry into the treatment of the house's apolitical staff. westminster has a problem with both bullying and harassment. what kind of a mark does that leave on you? i spent quite a lot of time not

sleeping and revisiting things, and as the years go by that eases. you do remember every detail. there's always, i think, because of the spell inflicted, a sense of failure and that's not enjoyable. it's not a good memory. i used to say to myself, i wouldn't really want to go back to the house of commons because i don't want to meet my own ghost, but i have a huge respect for it as an institution and the house of commons service, which for five years i was proud to be part of. but no, it's not a good experience and what you guys have exposed is that things are really no better. that makes me angry and that's why i want to speak out, and the same old things and memories and detail are all coming back as if they were yesterday. i kept notes at the time, i have not read them in the past eight years but i have been looking at them now and it brings it home just how difficult it was. so, just so we are clear, a prominent elected individual

bullies a member of the public staff, that member of staff is paid off, £85,000, after signing an nda. is that a fair reading of what happened ? it is a reading of it, and a pretty accurate one. a spokesman for the speaker's office said, "mr speaker strenuously denies there is any substance to any of these allegations. mr speaker has a superb team of dedicated, effective and long—serving staff, five of whom have worked for him very happily for a combined total of over a0 yea rs." i am joined now by helena kennedy qc, who is a human rights lawyer and labour peer. what do you make of that? well, first thing is i'm a lawyer so i would always say hearing one side of the story is never satisfactory, you haven't heard from john bercow, you would find many people in parliament who only have high regard for him.

women feel he made a creche for women and no other speaker had done that for them. gay men and women say he has made the place an am meanable place for people who had to hide their sexuality and he has made a place of comfort for them. there are many who would say the description ofjohn bercow is not one they know because they find him totally warm, supportive, and someone good to work with. so, there are questions in employment disputes which are, is that clash of personalities? was this just two people who couldn't get on in a highly, in a highly, you know, stressful role because there is a lot of pom 7 and circumstances, a lot of stress, i am sure john bercow comes under stress, all i would say is who know? there are two things i would add. in parliament non—disclosure agreement might have a different

is that credible to not investigate specifically? it is not like that. laura cox who is a high courtjudge, retired now, is leading an inquiry into this, and what she is going to be doing is looking at this systemically, there is a problem with non—disclosure agreement and the problem about sexual harassment as we have heard frequently recently. i am concerned about them, i think they are misused and overuse. i can understand there is a place for them, there is a place for them because they are used in for exam in the corporate world because to... before you get on to that,

is there not a place for inquiry into specific allegation at which the alleged victims can say i feel my case has been listened to and the allege perpetrators are also able to exonerate themselves. there are processes for that. they don't seem to be work, how has the house got to this point that no—one feels it that as process by which these complaints have been listened to. a process has been put in place at this very moment, as a result of particularly women raising complaints about sexual harassment and forms of abuse.

that has been put in place in the commons and the lords, so those reforms are in the process of taking place and they need to be in place, but you also need to have something to look at the culture that allows these things to happen, and that is what laura cox is doing. let us go to nda, because in the public sector it does seem odd that tax payers' money is being used to pay, this guy believes he was paid off to shut up. we don't know if that was the situation. hold on... that is taxpayer money that has been spent there. they are used in hospital, they are used in educational institution, in many place, where you know, where was the money coming from to pay for them? i don't approve of miss use of nda, there is a place for them of course in commercial law to protect intellectual property, if somebody leaving a job and knows plans of a company, they don't want them to be using it. in parliament that could be the case, that i think many people who work in parliament are asked to sign them because they are privvy to private conversations between politicians or policy makers which they have to protect the. so they have a place, a legitimate place but not

as covering up bad behaviour. that is my concern. they should never been used to cover up behaviour first of all criminal behaviour which we know sometimes, you know sexual assaults and so on shut people up, pay them off and they are buried but the other thing is they are being used, for bad behaviour where a pattern is important. anybody can, you know on some occasion behave in a questionable way, apologise and regret it, and you want it to be over with. but it is when you have patterns of behaviour, and that is why... it is hidden. ndas hide this stuff. what we want, there has to be in every place of work, a register so that if, because sometimes it is what both parties want, so you know and you say this, this person is doing this repeatedly. if that is case we want to know it. thank you so much.

i feel bad because we keep saying on this programme that we are about to hit a crunch point in the brexit talks, and it never quite happens. we always seem to move on without a final decision on what shape our future relationship with the eu will look like, or how we'll solve the irish border issue. so we should be hesitant in saying that tomorrow is a crucial moment when the cabinet brexit sub—committee sits down to try to work out the government's view on how to shape post—brexit customs arrangements. now it is an important day. ministers have to thrash out a government view on what the customs arrangement should look like. and the feeling has been that this could be messy, break the government apart even, because the prime minister's favourite customs option is hated by brexiteers. but newsnight has learned she hopes she mayjust have a way to hold her party together on the issue, for the time being at least.

could a deal between remainers and brexiteers really be in prospect? here's nick watt with what he's learned. an elite group of ministers may hold the fortunes of britain in their hands, as they make one of the most important decisions of the brexit process. just what sort of customs relationship should the uk have with the eu? theresa may has ruled out membership of the customs union, or a milder version known as a customs union. and so the 11 ministers on the cabinet sub—committee overseeing the brexit negotiations will consider two option, a new customs partnership in which the uk would mirror eu rules for goods arriving in the uk. the prime minister's chief adviser 0lly robins believes this would remove the need for a uk eu border while allowing the uk to negotiate its own trade deals. but, it is opposed by david davis, who favours a customs arrangement that would use technology to create

as fictionless a border as possible. david davis is unhappy with the first option because... as one ally told newsnight the idea is hugely complicated and could be used as way of keeping us in the eu through the back door. certainly there would be a lot of disappointed brexiteers, if we were to end up in the customs partnership a and i think the prime minister's calculations have to include exactly what reaction there would be both from the parliamentary party and the wider conservative party if we were to enter into that sort of relationship. the other brexiteers on the committee, michael gove, borisjohnson and liam fox share these reservations about the partnership plan. at crunch moments they hope to rely on the support of the defence secretary, who has leaned in their direction

since the referendum. the leavers hope their arrival could be strengthened. but, downing street has not given up hope of finding common ground between the levers, and the other remain supporterss of on the committee. david lidington, philip hammond, greg clark and karen bradley. in downing street, they are keen to avoid talk of a war cab any and a showdown between minister, this is a prime minister who likes to achieve consensus. and theresa may does not have to reach a deal at tomorrow's meeting. so, talk of a showdown is out, but work is under way on a grand customs bargain, theresa may is expected to tell brexiteers that signing up to the customs partnership could be the best way of killing off a commons rebellion on a customs union.

give ground here, and the pro european tories will hopefully give ground there, is expected to be her message. no member of parliament comes into politics to vote against their own party, brexit is complicated enough, but what we are not going to do is make trade harderfor the many businesses in this country nor make peace in northern ireland something we put at risk and destabilise the situation there, so there is hard conversations to be had but i can say that mps want to have those conversations with the cabinet. theresa may could see a turn in her fortune amid signs of calm in parts of the tory tribe but some brexiteers are digging in against the customs partnership which michael gove regards as bonkers. much of the world has spent today trying to digest a theatrical performance yesterday by the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, in which he used

numerous graphics to lay out evidence he said israeli intelligence had accumulated, showing that iran had lied and had a nuclear weapons programme. the suggestion was that the iranians had broken the terms of the nuclear deal. it added ballast to president trump's scepticism of the treaty. but did mr netanyahu offer new evidence of anything we didn't know? 0ur diplomatic editor mark urban is with me. people have been trying to work it out. there was a lot of files an a lot of power point, what do you make of it all? well, look, i don't think too many people have been impressed or had their minds changed by this, there was a statement from the white house press secretary this evening which i think the israelis would have regarded as helpful who said that the presentation had shown that iranian work on nuclear weapons which stopped in 2003 was further along than they had thought. that is about the most encouraging thing anyone said today, the iranian foreign minister said

binyamin netanyahu was crying wolf, this is what he does, if one has to look at the arms control nerd, people connected with the nuclear watchdog which went in to investigate previously alleged elms of a nuclear weapons programme, one can say there has been a collective raspberry blown to the whole thing. the big date is may 12th because donaldj trump is saying she is sceptical of the deal and may terminate american involvement. this comes round six monthly, if we know the way president trump thinks and we see the way he played the north korea issue he sees these as potential pressure points to leverage a better deal in the terms he would see it. we have heard from france and other signatory today and some of the other europeans, that the point of view that no, this dossier that mr netanyahu came out with underlines the continued need for it, because the deal has a dispute resolution mechanism, if you come across something which is the press secretary of the white house, they suggest they might have been further along than you thought, take it up through that mechanism because if you junk it

you will have nothing. thank you. joining me now from washington is jarrett blanc. he worked in the us state department while barack 0bama was president. his job was trying to ensure iran fulfilled its nuclear commitments. he now works at the carnegie endowment for international peace. a very good evening to you. do you think israel had anything credible yesterday to add? do you think israel gained credibility yesterday or perhaps lost it? certainly what has been announced publicly so far does not add anything substantial to our understanding of a rant‘s nuclear programmes of the information may be credible but it does not appear to be new. in an expert community, israel has lost credibility. if they had thought they had serious information here,

they would have treated it very differently, held it secret, mind the data for information that could drive future inspections from the iaea but i think they had an audience of one person, president trump, and may have gained credibility in his eyes. the white house says it does prove something interesting which is the iranians were further advanced than people had realised that the time the deal was signed. do you buy that? they have access to the hundreds of thousands of pages of documents prime minister netanyahu claims to have, i don't. i would say there's only very modest if any additional information. there could be extra private information, if so they have wasted an opportunity to drive better iaea inspections. in the public realm i don't see much new. do you accept iran

has lied in the past? do you accept it has been a country that has lied about its nuclear activity? certainly, iran had it on testing nuclear weapons programme from 1997 until about 2004, they denied it so that is a lie. the reason we built the iran deal the way we did was to allow invasive inspections in order to make sure iran was compliant in accepting the limitations of the deal. it is not based on trust or our belief they are telling the truth, it is based on the world's most invasive inspections regime. do you think the desire to get a deal, the need to get a deal, the collective pressure to get a dealfrom europeans and others involved did push you along to sign something that was basically giving almost anything just to get a signature at the end of the day? i absolutely would not agree with that assessment.

iran gave up 99% of their uranium, they accepted strict limitations on future enrichment programme, gave up three quarters of their centrifuges, gave up the iraq research reactor in a configuration that would have been able to produce plutonium. they accepted the most strict inspection regime anywhere in the world, this is a very good deal and has been repeated over and over again by the iaea, by the us intelligence community, by allied intelligence communities. the deal is working and keeping iran away from a clandestinely programme and keeping confidence in the world that iran is not developing nuclear weapons. some people will say of president trump he says a lot, he throws things around on twitter or elsewhere, and occasionally seems to move things along. perhaps people would say the he has done that with kim jong—un home and north korea.

maybe he will extract a better deal high—vis threat and the noise he and the attention he's throwing at this issue. do you think there is any value in that? i think it is just a fanciful story. us were to impose sanctions unilaterally there would be less economic pressure on iran than there was before the deal because we would be acting alone and not in conjunction with this broad range of international partners including russia and china that got us to the deal. the idea you can go from the point of lesser leveraged to a better deal doesn't make a lot of sense. either way, so far i don't see north korean concessions, i see a major us concession in the willingness to hold summit but i think residentjohn is getting unwarranted credit and certainly not any credit that should cast a positive light on his iran policy. thank you for your reflections.

every new generation that comes along has to not only choose its particular style of music, it has to select its political causes and find its voice. apart from wanting to dance and make love, each generation wants turn the world upside down. and the rule is that as it then grows old, invests in property and looks back fondly on its youthful follies. millennials are the latest to be shaking up politics in their own way, but it's way too soon for them to grow old, and frankly, too expensive for them to have bought houses yet. today some of them were protesting in paris in demonstrations that saw over 200 people arrested. however, the baby boomers have now been full cycle and in france at least, can look back to a particular year that defined the zeal of the young. 1968. it was the cradle of student protest.

and now we're in may, this is the 50th anniversary of, well, may 1968, when the young teamed up with dissatisfied workers to reshape french society. how did it go? stephen smith has been to paris to look back. it was the moment when the student activism of the anti—vietnam demos reached the beautiful city of proust. i love the taste of madeleines in the morning. the 68 evenement, much dicussed, much romanticised, but what were they really about? i mean, qu'est—ce que c‘est? you can only truly know paris on foot as the great flaneurs baudelaire and rimbaud proved. so we're off to get the view from the cobbles, that dramatic spring 50 years ago. first stop is the great university of the sorbonne.

here police clashed with students, including a young man called henri weber. henri led us through the latin quarter to a street corner where the youth of paris came tete—a—tete with les gendarmes. did the police still want to talk to you about it? or are you in the clear now? no, no, no, no. i am a very good friend with a lot of ministers of the interior. that's why you can walk on the street and not the pavement. these cobbles, yeah. no report on may ‘68 is complete without philosophers.

in fact, no report on france is complete without philosophers, and agnes poirier has studied what the intellectuals were thinking as the cobblestones flew. a philosopher, who was the philosopher of the right if you like, jean—paul sartre as the philosopher of the left, said, "every now and then the french, who are a very conservative society, need a general release." i mean, there was a trigger. the trigger was that at nantes university, the boys wanted to access the girls' dormitory, and when people don't know this, they think, "of course, you french, that's the way you start revolutions." it was a great national unbuttoning.

politics was no longer for the politicians alone. and art came out of the salon and into the street. it isn't only in the galleries they are looking back 50 years. the events of may ‘68 are also exercising the imaginations it isn't only in the galleries they are looking back 50 years. the events of may ‘68 are also exercising the imaginations of the most sensitive and highly strung artists in all of paris. the chefs. sacre bleu! it's heart—throb chocolatier patrick roger, the man who puts the bon into bon—bon. born in 1968, he has taken it upon himself to commemorate the events of that year, as only he can. yes, please.

i'm getting base notes of tear gas and truncheon. and what about the youth of today? are the students of paris still revolting? we went to meet them at their union h0. well, it was after lunch. they had been working very late the night before, we were told. it's different to like 50 years ago. everything's changed, the relation between organisations, student organisation and governments, the place of the young people in society, everything changed. today i can't imagine taking a rock

and throwing it at policemen, today we have other methods, negotiations, media appearances, that work, that will work. and so, i think it's a brand—new world. laughter. so was it sex, art, politics, freedom? in the end, there's an elusive je ne sais quoi about may ‘68. what did it all mean? like the chinese communist leader who was asked about the french rrevolution, one can only reply, "it's too early to say." that's all we have time for.

emily's here tomorrow. till then, goodnight. good evening. amongst these cloudy skies in the far west later tonight, we have clubs springing a wet start to tomorrow morning for quite a few of you. that things will brighten up the sunshine and showers from the west as we go through the day. tonight's rain is courtesy of this zone of cloud which has been inching of the atlantic. clear skies with you in to northern ireland in north—west islands of scotland. that will eventually pushing through the night, turning dry here but heavy bursts of rain across scotland tonight. increasingly so in the western parts of england and wales. some splashes further east but it

means nowhere near as cold as it was last night. temperatures down to “11, tonight, most staying at 69 celsius. a thoroughly wet start through parts of eastern scotland, western england and wales, especially. the heaviest of the rain here. a little bit of rain towards east of england but the wettest conditions in east anglia and the south—east will be in late morning onwards, and will clear by the end of the afternoon. a scattering of showers. quite a few showers around, some in the north heavy with hail. a bit of sleet over high ground but some lovely spells of sunshine in between, even if it doesn't feel especially warm. what is left of any rain will clear away from the south—east corner as we go into the evening and into wednesday night, clearer skies, shallow starting to fade. you will start to see a surge of world air push in on

thursday as the jet stream moves we re thursday as the jet stream moves were the north but to begin with some other cold air in place. a touch of frost around first thing thursday morning, especially in eastern areas. plenty of sunshine to get your day under way but cloud will increase from the west. sunny spells across central areas, scotla nd spells across central areas, scotland and northern ireland a few outbreaks of rain and drizzle. temperatures will start to rise a little bit. most places into the mid—teens by this stage, and into friday, where the air continues to come up from the south—west, murky across western areas and further drizzle around in places, especially hills and coast. in central and eastern parts, where the cloud brea ks eastern parts, where the cloud breaks it will start to feel warmer still. temperatures could get up to the mid to high teens by this stage, and of course a bank holiday on the horizon. the good news to see the jetstrea m horizon. the good news to see the jetstream pushing to the north of us into saturday. that allows even warmerairto into saturday. that allows even warmer air to work into place. high pressure will build across southern areas. if you have plans for this bank holiday weekend, dare i say it, shocking news, things will turn a little bit warmer. it will not be com pletely little bit warmer. it will not be completely dry but most places will be, and cloud will break to allow some sunshine through. so

temperatures for most of us mid—to—high teens, if not low 20s. enjoy. this is newsday on the bbc. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: a major side effect of the philippines' war on drugs, the severe overcrowding in prisons. we have a rare insight into manila's city jail. just to give you an idea of the conditions, have a look through the. hundreds of people sleeping side—by—side, with hardly any room to move through the night. armenia's protest leader says a decision by parliament to block his bid for prime minister is a declaration of war on the people and called for action. we'll have the latest. i'm kasia madera in london. also in the programme: mark zuckerberg admits it's been an intense year for facebook