tony o'brien had been under pressure since it emerged 208 women who had cervical cancer should have received earlier intervention. 17 have died. in a statement tonight, mr o'brien said he had made his decision to avoid any further impact to the delivery of health and social care services. now it's time for newsnight with evan davis. mps want to debate, not over abortion but anti—abortion protests. just how close to the clinics should they be able to go and what is a cce pta ble they be able to go and what is acceptable behaviour?” they be able to go and what is acceptable behaviour? i have been able to carry a model of my dash of able to carry a model of my dash of a ten week—old fetus in my pocket because you come over that conversation, it is a clump of cells, it is relevant to say that is

what it looks like. also tonight, israel and iran. are they both itching for a fight? we will hear different perspectives. and from this, do this. after the most abject government apology for the facility and torture of abdul hakim belhaj and torture of abdul hakim belhaj and his wife, we ask how much it was and his wife, we ask how much it was a blight on the blair government's record? my dear friend, you won't leave me? and barbara windsor's husband has opened up about alzheimer's. we talk to people whose pa rents alzheimer's. we talk to people whose parents have died of dementia and when to talk about it. hello. mps want to debate, not over abortion but anti—abortion protests. tomorrow, over 150 mps from different parties are putting their name to a letter to the new home secretary, sajid javid.

they want him to put his personal weight behind a home office review of anti—abortion campaigns in close proximity to abortion clinics. one council has delineated an exclusion zone outside a clinic. is that what should happen elsewhere? women visiting many clinics at the moment are confronted by a mix of pickets, placards and prayers. many of them consider it harassment. but for those against abortion, this is about free speech, and offering alternatives to abortion to women. well, in the us, abortion is on the frontline of a culture war between liberals and religious conservatives — an issue argued as bitterly as brexit is here. but as we now live in an era of globalisation of protest, is the us fight over abortion coming here? helen thomas has been looking at both sides of the debate. her report does contain images of some graphic anti—abortion campaign material. 50 years since abortion became legal in britain... it was described as the greatest moral issue of them all... 50 years of protests. the anti—abortion lobbyists tried

to block the driveway with their bodies. controversy that goes right to the doors of hospitals and medical centres. this is an explicit strategy. it makes the fact that women are seeking an abortion a public spectacle. and instead we stand outside a hospital and we pray, calling for an end to abortion. we had a client who, to avoid having to walk past them, has climbed over our wall and turned up here with bruised and grazed knees. and still it continues. who are you three men to talk about women's rights over their own bodies? argument continues ealing council has banned anti—abortion protesters from demonstrating outside a clinic which provides terminations.

ealing, 2018. the first place to put a so—called buffer zone around a uk abortion clinic. it is a move anti—abortion groups here say restricts freedom of expression, and their work supporting women. the debate is going on nationwide. i'm looking at a database from the british pregnancy advisory service, or bpas. this is the material sent to the home office as part of the review into whether buffer zones are needed around abortion clinics. there's nearly 1,600 accounts from clients, friends and relatives, passers—by and local residents. and it's from clinics across the country, from glasgow to portsmouth, from cardiff to norwich. some date back to the 19805 and 905. but the vast majority come after about 2013. when certain groups, some linked to the us, started to become more active, and then bpas started collecting

contemporaneous accounts. we're outside the qmc, the queen's medical centre... john is part of a0 days for life, an organisation started in texas and active in the uk for eight years. we want to be within sight of the place where abortions are carried out. for a0 days in lent, john's group stood outside nottingham's main hospital for 12 hours a day. nottingham city council brought an injunction against him. it was overturned by a judge who said it could "simply not be justified". it seems to mean to be a fairly important aspect of a healthy, democratic society, the ability to discuss with people

important issues, even if they are contentious. it is not about persuading people, forcing people. it is about praying for people. and i believe, as a christian, that god will be in people's lives, if we ask them to. why they cannot walk 100 metres down the road or in church or at home? why is it important to you that you have to be praying there? we do pray 100 metres down the road, and in church. we pray elsewhere. and what we are doing in a0 days is, we are also adding to that. an offer of practical help and support. and witness, really. we know a lot of the people who are leading these groups, and they are just not the sort of people who... the kind of people who go out praying in the rain and in the cold outside a clinic or hospital, they're not violent or aggressive people. be here for me is a campaign against buffer zones.

these accounts from women helped outside clinics are taken from 1a on their website. without the support from outside the abortion clinic, i would have had only one choice. my baby girl would not be here today if i hadn't met the woman outside. there are many women who, from what we know, have been coerced into having an abortion. can i ask, by who? by family, by friends, by boyfriends. you accept that the majority of women who are attending clinics are there under their own free will? yes. i don't think i could challenge that. the question is, whether, when they've made that decision, in the light of all the evidence, do they know, for example that abortion involves

killing an unborn child? and what we do is, we stand and hold signs. i think, on one of your posts, you talked about plastic foetuses. i know that some groups use theirs as a sort of demonstration. i have been known to carry a model of a ten—week—old foetus in my pocket because if, in a conversation, you come across that old chestnut, "it's a clump of cells," it's relevant to say, "that's what it looks like at ten weeks." independent sources told newsnight nottingham vigils were unintrusive. but the accounts about a0 days for life and other groups are different elsewhere. they were stood on both sides of the road, one with a large a3 sized picture ofjesus. one followed us over to where we stood, even though we purposely walk to avoid them. it's not one unified movement, and different groups approach in different ways.

but a lot of the inspiration does come from the us, so there's lots of kind of ideas and suggestions of what to do outside clinic. not all the anti—abortion groups outside clinics have links to the us. the good counsel network which was involved in the protests in ealing, took its inspiration from an organisation in ireland. then there's the helpers of god's precious infants. they organise vigils nationwide. they were an existing uk group in the 19905 but changed their name after a visit from the us priest who founded helpers. one controversial group with us ties i5 abort 67. they use graphic images of, they say, aborted foetuses, to "educate the public" about abortion. is that part of a woman's body? it's in their womb.

this is their founder, andrew stevenson, at a recent demonstration. the group compare5 society's acceptance of abortion to historic attitudes towards the slave trade. for hundreds of years we had human beings being dehumanised, compared to animals, so other people could exploit them. abort67 is a project of the centre for bioethical reform uk, which has an affiliation with an american group of the same name. seven years ago, the centre for bioethical reform uk had reported income of about £5,000. according to their accounts at companies house. in the year to april 2017, the latest available, they reported over £100,000. the group told newsnight its funding comes from individual donations. it said... the good counsel network says it's

aware of the 1000 women who have changed their mind thanks to prayer vigils in the last five years. bpas says roughly one in five women who come in for a consultation doesn't have an abortion with them. and that doesn't really vary between clinic5 with protests and those without. the kind of re—emergence of the anti—abortion movement is because they are losing the public support. now, over 60% of people believe that it should just be a woman's choice to have an abortion. and over 90% of the public, and again, across all social categories, people believe that abortion should be available in at least some circumstances. the bpas clinic in bournemouth has had an anti—abortion presence near its entrance for decades.

mainly church groups. they didn't tend to approach people. but in 2016, sarah was confronted by a man who try to record what she said. one of the men, dressed as a monk, ran over to me and got very, very close into my face and started asking me questions about whether i was aware that termination is murder. every time i tried to sort of move away from him, he just moved with me. i walked very quickly to my car. i then felt something very close to me and i turned around and it was him. he had run after me. and by this point i did scream. i was absolutely petrified. the clinic doesn't believe that man was associated

with a0 days for life. the manager has worked here for 1a year5. she says the clinic has had more people more frequently outside since the group started its vigils last year. far more intimidating, more aggressive. they stand across the entrance. there is more of them, with placards. and they will actually approach and engage and touch clients and staff. it's gone too far because they are literally on our doorstep and clients have to try and manouevre past them to get into the building. and it's very hard for our staff, because we can't do anything about it. we put some of the stories from bournemouth to the man who oversees the a0 days for life vigils in the uk. we have a statement of peace that very clearly says that you must be a peacefully. you must be head carefully and you must behave carefully. and anything you do outside of that immediately this association yourself from the campaign. i haven't seen any single individual

in eight years overstep tho5e mark5. we are simply there, offering a leaflet and offering prayers, and some people might feel bad about that, i understand, but to say that what we're doing constitutes hara55ment, i would reject that. if somebody feel5 hara55ed, it is not the same as actually being harassed. la5t weekend's march for life, an estimated a000 people, say the organisers. many of whom believe they see a truth that most of the country is blind to. the debate over buffer zones raises questions of definition. what constitutes hara55ment or intimidation? shame on you! and it raises questions of rights. to free expression. to privacy. to seek legal medical treatment without aggravation. helen thomas is with me now.

helen, a letter tomorrow going to sajid javid, i think the names were being added last time. this is a letter written by the labour mp for ealing, who wrote to amber rudd last year which helped to prompt this review into activity around abortion clinics. the letter had 112 5ignatories and this one i'm told may be reaching 160. they includejeremy corbyn, vince cable, zac goldsmith. in terms of new names, you have ken clarke, yvette cooper, john whittingdale and sarah. there is a sense that the issue was moving forward quickly under amber rudd, she'd talked about it not being acceptable that people felt harassed or intimidated and she talked about creating new powers. there's a feeling that sajid javid is more of unknown quantity. right.

ealing has done it so clearly local government have some power to take measures. there are several councils looking at doing the same thing as ealing, which basically uses anti—social behaviour powers. in bournemouth where we filmed the council has visited the clinic to talk about a buffer zone. no word on a formal consultation yet. worth noting that in other parts of the world, the us, canada, australia, these buffer zones are very often challenged in the courts on free—speech grounds and sometimes successfully and indeed in ealing we've already heard about a potential legal challenge. thank you forjoining us. for decades, no love has been lost between israel and iran. for months, they have been skirmishing in syria, sometimes directly, sometimes via proxies. so it was not for the first time last night, that missiles flew. but it does seem this was the first time that iran itself has sent rockets into israeli—occupied

territory, the golan heights. 20 were dispatched according to israel, although they had little effect, partly thanks to the israeli defence system. israel retaliated, striking iranian positions in syria. iran has taken advantage of the syrian civil war to build up a military infrastructure there, for itself and its ally, hezbollah. in doing so, it's put more hardware near israel. with the nuclear deal fragile, this is arguably a conflict ready to erupt. here's our diplomatic editor, mark urban. damascus last night echoed to the sound of anti—aircraft fire. syrian air defences tried to shoot down israeli missiles. they've had plenty of practice recently but they still didn't have much effect. it is clear that israel wanted to send a very clear message to iran. there was a mistake that israel committed after 2000, when israel withdrew from lebanon

and iran used this in order to build a state within a state to increase and strengthen hezbollah and israel isn't going to repeat the same mistake in syria. israel's argument is that an attempted iranian drone strike in february using a stealthy unmanned aircraft showed that new red lines needed to be drawn. it was shot down. but as this footage demonstrated, packed with explosives. but why should the iranians accept last night's onslaught? isn't retaliation inevitable? iran regards its presence in syria as crucial for maintaining its influence in the levant and therefore it does not see any option beyond staying in syria and supporting the current regime of bashar al—assad, which means

maintaining its forces on the ground. a5 things stand, it is highly likely that iran will continue to provoke israel into responding militarily in syria but that doesn't mean that iran is interested in launching a full out war on israel or vice versa. the israelis say they bombed more than 50 targets in syria. how did they manage it with the powerful air defences? well, the places they hit were all in the south—east of syria. if we superimpose 50 or 100 kilometre range arcs for israeli fighters you can see that the mission could be accomplished using air—launched missiles and largely without leaving israeli airspace. a5 for russia's powerful air defences in syria, those appear to have been neutralised by diplomatic means. i'm sure that on the one hand, prime minister netanyahu made it clear to the russians

that we will not tolerate iranian strategic ambitions in syria and i'm sure that putin explained to netanyahu what are the limitations of the israeli activities from his point of view. such is the importance of these understandings that mr netanyahu was in moscow yesterday, close to president putin for the annual victory day parade. that sent a message to iran also about the limits of russia's support in a new age of multipolarity. iran, israel, turkey and russia are locked in an intense battle in syria. it's almost 19th—century in its ruthlessness and the way that realpolitik is being exploited. and right now, because iran is on the back foot over the nuclear deal, any large—scale military action by them would be inopportune

at the moment, and russia and israel are taking advantage. although iran and russia are allied in syria, the alliance is only a pragmatic one and russia wants to keep the upper hand in this relationship and actually doesn't mind if iran every now and then feels pressured, for from the israelis inside syria. this has sometimes resulted in russia feeding intelligence about iranian presence in syria to israel, which has gone ahead and attacked these iranian targets. and this is all because russia wants to be stronger than iran in the syrian conflict. israeli troops occupying the golan heights had been braced for retaliation. but it may not come soon. even so, iranian leaders have promised to avenge previous strikes, so the lull may be temporary. i am joined now by mark regev the israeli ambassador to the uk

and former spokesperson to the israeli prime minister, and the journalist and author azadeh moaveni. why does iran fired 20 rockets at israeli occupied territory? what are they trying to prove? partly we have to look at it in the context of the last several weeks and months. israel has been striking iranian positions in syria, iran has resisted until now being goaded to do much more but it is responding in kind to israeli positions in what we should remember is occupied syrian territory. i think however, there was some talk in that segment about how the conflict will unfold, iran feeling the need to maintain forces in syria. i think iran feels it is mission accomplished, it has secured and help the regime of bashar al—assad stand up against these saudi...

it looks like assad has won so i come back to why they fired 20 rockets at something that is currently occupied by israel. it isn't going to take back the goal and heights, it wasn't defeating israel, it was just a hostile gesture of an immature kind, wasn't it? —— the golan heights. i think the iranian government will be pragmatic, they feel they've secured the central government of syria. that isn't helped by missiles being launched. tonight president rouhani said to angela merkel that they don't want any new tensions. it's a funny way of showing it, europeans are trying to hold the nuclear deal together, it is incomprehensible, firing rockets. iran may decide that it is suitable that it doesn't want to pay the political cost and will pull

out its few hundred revolutionaries that it has in syria and return to the status quo ante. iran's influence in syria will be undiminished by pulling out its forces. you think so? it feels like they've been building up an infrastructure, as a few countries have, involving themselves in a deep way. is that defensive for iran or is it pure interference in a country that is in the most ghastly turmoil? i think iran feels itself to be ultimately in a defensive position. it's signed up to the nuclear accord, it has abided by its terms, it seemed the us deciding to violate it. the stated problems with iran, that the ambassador will talk about and president trump has talked about is iran's regional behaviour. if that is a problem, pulling out of the nuclear... building infrastructure in syria,

can iran really claim this is defensive, that this is helping iran? syria is a country away from iran? iran feels like it would behave and engage differently in the region if it did not have to resort to proxies and these types of influence, if they were integrated into a kind of regional security architecture, if they weren't trying to beat economically strangled by sanctions and could normalise ties with the world. let me put this to the ambassador. do you recognise, i know you recognise israel has defensive concerns, they fire rockets at you and you have to defend yourselves, and your going to say that three times

in the next three minutes. do you recognise that iran has defensive concerns? that's the whole question. i think syria is about 1,000 miles from iran territory, so what are they actually doing in syria? two things. they have propped up this very brutal and murderous regime of mr assad, supporting his use of chemical weapons, so they've got a very bad record that the international community should be worried about. at the same time they are trying to build up a military base from which to attack us and we take that seriously. the iranians have a lots to be paranoid about, don't they? there was a hostile change of regime in 1953, the cia admitted they were involved in conspiring to overthrow the government, they got involved in iraq, saudi arabia spends at something like four,

five times more on defence as iran, you have nuclear weapons, iran doesn't. you can see that iran, if you put your mind into where they are, you can see they may feel, as israel does, that this is a rather unfriendly environment. without dealing with all of the premises of your question i would say the following, we've got nothing against iran. there was a time when we had a very good relationship. not so long ago, i visited iran and the israeli national carrier used to fly to teheran. the trouble is the regime. you have a regime that is very ideological, headed by the aptly called supreme leader, ayatollah khomeini. they are trapped into the extreme model of the islamic revolution from 1979. they say that the revolution needs to be exported, they say that my country

should be destroyed, they say that acts of terrorism are legitimate. your defence is never going to rely on what they say, because words won't defend israel, what will is having a very strong and technically capable defence. is it fair on the people of syria for israel to get dragged into that conflict and to be firing missiles into syria ? i now that you are throwing them at iranian posts in syria but this is as bad as anything you could imagine happening to the people of israel. it's terrible, the civil war has been going on for too long and israel hasn't been a party to it. but you are one of the countries intervening. we haven't been involved in the civil war whatsoever militarily but that could change and i want to explain why. if the assad regime allowed the iranians to build inside syria for the formidable military regime, we can't sit back.

what is it therefore? is syria not to be allowed to invite of its own volition iranian involvement? i think the opposite is true. iranians say mr assad, we have paid the price and now it is payback. and so you have the right to bomb syria because the syrian government has invited the iranians? if iran builds a military presence in syria, then that is offensive and end against us... but they have denied that. they can deny it until tomorrow. but you're not going to let it happen. what is interesting and what your views need to know is that the arab states and israel on this issue are one. you're not here to talk

for the arab states. it is important to say this. the whole region is concerned about a rain aggression. and i would say to british audiences, they'll not used to hearing that arabs and israelis agree on a lot. when they agree, you should pay attention. is it correct that russia has given israel intelligence about iranian positions in syria ? as your reporter said, we are looking for a diplomatic solution, whereby the russian, sorry iranian military presence in syria ends peacefully. that is the best outcome. that's what we would like to see. we're out of time now, you both very much. the government made quite an apology today. i don't think anyone could say it was half—hearted, or worded ambiguously. it was an apology to abdel hakim belhaj, and his wife fatima boudchar, who — with the help of m16 — were abducted and tortured in libya in 200a. it was read by the attorney general, jeremy wright, in the name of the prime minister.

the uk government's actions contributed to your detention, rendition and suffering. the uk government shared information about you with its international partners. we should have done more to reduce the risk that you would be mistreated. we accept this was a failing on our part. on behalf of her majesty's government, i apologise unreservedly. we are profoundly sorry for the ordeal which you both suffered and our role in it. there was half a million in compensation too, and a ceremonial handing over of the apology letter to mr belhaj as well, just in case anyone had missed how abject this "sorry" was. but it did settle the matter for the couple, who then dropped the legal action against the government, as well as jack straw, who was foreign secretary; and sir mark allen, the former head of counter—terrorism at mi6. while it was theresa may who said sorry for the government, it was of course tony blair who was pm at the time

of the abduction. we know governments make mistakes. we've had more than one apology for the windrush scandal, for example. but is this an admission of such an error that it sits as a serious blot on the labour government of the time? our political editor nick watt is with me. take us through the curious timing of all of this. this is in the context of the post—9/11 world where there is a common interest in tackling al-anda. three key dates. in december 2003 tony blair announces that colonel gaddafi has agreed to dismantle his programme of weapons of mass destruction and the significance of that is the failure to find wmd in iraq. three months after that historic deal when tony blair lavished praise on the colonel gaddafi, mi6 provides crucial intelligence that leads to the detention of a leading libyan dissident, abdel hakim belhaj and his wife, they are detained in bangkok and they are flown in short order to tripoli. it is important to say that abdel hakim belhaj denies ever being a supporter of al-anda. and then just two weeks after he is detained,

tony blair turns up in tripoli, meets, gaddafi. i was on that trip and i remember that british officials accompanying the prime minister talked about "great intelligence sharing cooperation with the libyans". it is important to say that jack straw, who was the foreign secretary at the time of this has released a statement today, and he says... and sir mark allen, the m16 officer who was dealing with the libyans, he has never spoken publicly about this, but along with jack straw and all of the agencies involved, he denies individual wrongdoing. but i'm very compressed there.

—— the time very compressed, there. i'm joined now by lance price, former labour director of communications, who left blair's government three years before abdel hakim belhaj was seized. good evening to you. did you wonder today why theresa may was having to apologise for this, rather than the people who were kind of in power at the time that it happened, tony blair, jack straw and the others? i would have found it strange that she was apologising on behalf of the british government when it was a different government, of course, that was responsible and was in power at the time. it was a pretty damning indictment on the government. the most damning that i have heard from one government on a previous one. heard from one government we expect politicians to take responsibility. amber rudd has to take responsibility for the clock ups at the home office. even though she did not personally deprive people of health care. do you the environment created by the government, the politicians at that time, in this desperate attempt to have a rapprochement with,

gaddafi, do you think that was responsible? that is largely what led to it. there is no doubt that tony blair was determined by one means or another to eliminate the threat, if he could, from what were considered to be rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction and in the case of iraq, we know that they didn't exist, in the case of libya they certainly did, and he thought that this deal was going to disarm gaddafi's libya and he thought clearly that it was worth making some concessions, giving gaddafi some thing in return for it and in general,... he was someone who would think there was a bigger end here and that was just the price you pay for these things? people will still ask the thorny old question of who knew what and when and whether or not mr blair and mr straw knew at the time that it was all but certain that he was going to be tortured.

they would say not, i presume. but i think if somebody had gone up to tony blair at the time as, said, you do realise that this guy is likely to end up in a libyan prison and be tortured, that he would have considered that an acceptable price to pay. he would have considered that acceptable or unacceptable? it is very hard to conceive. really? you said he would have thought that that was an acceptable, not an unacceptable. that is exactly what i said, i wanted to get that right. in the middle east, we have got iraqi already, this and the kind of calling up to gaddafi, is this going to be a big block or, the way this was executed? i'm sure that people will put it together alongside a ruck,

and the scale barack, it was a very different thing. as an indelible stain on the moral integrity of the government. governments make mistakes. they might build a power station that should have been built or have the wrong immigration policy, but when someone is tortured, do you think that is the kind of mistake government makes that is somehow in a different league? it is obviously something people find completely morally unacceptable. there is a moral policy —— quality to it, as there is with immigration policy, perhaps not over the building of a railway line, but it's something that goes to the heart of what government is all about. let's be clear. it wasn't the british government who was torturing. but the denials made by the government at the time, a clever lawyer politician, sometimes the same thing, orjust about standing over them, but there is no doubt the government did facilitate the rendition

and at the very least turn a blind eye to torture, and that is pretty serious. but we don't know, jack straw says he would not have signed it off knowing what the consequences were. but the think tony blair would have said that that might be a price to pay? he didn't say it, he didn't have too saved, but if he had thought that, that would have been kind of illegal. we don't think of our politicians as going that far. if he had condoned or encouraged or was actually responsible for torture happening, and i don't think that is what people are... he didn't ship anybody either. but the british government did provide the intelligence that enabled others to do that. and it is significant that in the prime minister's statement today she said that the government,

the blair government, should have realised earlier what our partners were up to. thank you very much indeed. scott mitchell, husband to barbara windsor, has revealed that she is suffering from alzheimer's — she was diagnosed back in 201a but since last summer, "a definite continual confusion" has set in, so it's becoming a lot more difficult for us to hide, he said. he wanted the world to know, so the two of them could go out and people would accept her condition for what it is. he's been commended for his openness, which has prompted a lot of conversations today about how much to reveal about oneself, or a relative, with a dementia diagnosis. i'm joined by sarah weir, whose parents both died from alzheimer's. good evening to you. it was three octo pramac years ago, i think, was in the? and what was the experience that you had with your parents? they were different.

with my father it was about ten years ago. he didn't actually tell me he had the diagnosis. i got the smack of stories. i discovered, i had to go down and see his doctor. his doctor told me with my father sitting there, and i was overwhelmed by this because i didn't know how to cope with it, so we didn't discuss it between ourselves. five years on, when my mother got it, and that was quite a shock, i remember dinner with my mother and stepfather and all these non sequiturs coming into the conversation and my stomach started churning and i thought, not again. when she actually made a call to me, i knew that she had alzheimer's. she made the call with my stepfather standing there, clearly concern. she was open, your father was less open. and you would prefer open. it's because ten years ago there was less discussion about it. that was the difference. with my mother, that was the only time she really mentioned the word. you told someone about your mum and aged just didn't believe you, i think, because the symptoms had not gone far enough. they could be with her for ten minutes or 20 minutes and she might seem fine.

people are fearful. it's something they don't understand they don't know about, and some of them withdrew. and i would say that i feel for barbara and family, today. don't withdraw. because the person is still the person. it is a long gap between the initial diagnosis and the point at which the person becomes very obviously... yes, that happened with both my parents. whose decision is it, the person who has had the diagnosis, about how open to be, or about the relatives who might be doing the looking after? that is a good question. with my mother came from her first and she never discussed it again. my stepfather wanted some help to tell some of the phrase. when we were out and about and people didn't know, it was sometimes difficult

because i could see people looking and staring and thinking, there is something a bit strange here, and you don't quite know what to say. and sometimes i thought very protective of her, and my father. you felt protective of them and you didn't want people to treat them differently. because they were just seen the world differently. you are a trustee of the alzheimer's society. a volunteer. there is a system where you were a band, or something. i have it. and you invite people to get a bit of a break. yes, we have 2.a million volunteers who are dementia friends. lots of supermarkets have signed up. i can remember with my mother if i went into the place and saw someone wearing this badge, i knew that i could relax so if you would be heading out of the ordinary and you that they would be more patient, they would not spare, and i could you relax because my mother was more relaxed. —— they wouldn't stare.

that's all we have time for — goodnight. hello, once again. we're almost done with thursday and it was a really decent sort of day from many parts of the british isles. we will start ina similarsort of the british isles. we will start in a similar sort of came across central and eastern areas, actually start for some of you, the obvious fly in the ointment is this weather front which spreads rain into the western fringes of scotland and wales and england, having been all over northern ireland for the greatest pa rt over northern ireland for the greatest part of the day. further east, a bit of sunshine, mid teens, other teams. nothing like it am afraid the northern ireland. the rain drifting further north and

east, the tail end of the front producing very little during the night across the south of the cloud hopes to keep the temperatures up. there is wet weather to start a new day across the north—eastern quarter of scotland. showers showing their hand towards the south—west. quite a bit of dry weather. the rain gathers across the eastern side of england and a wet day to come from much of scotla nd and a wet day to come from much of scotland on sunday. i'm sharanjit leyl in singapore. the headlines: the date isjune 12th. the venue is singapore. the first ever summit between a north korean and us leader puts the lion city at the crossroads of history. a5 92—year—old mahathir mohamad is sworn in as malaysia's prime minister, the country's youth give their verdict. he's like the godfather! you will do

whatever it takes to get whatever he wants. i guess age doesn't matter too much, i'm just more worried about his track record. i'm lebo diseko in london. also in the programme: the mountains of abandoned metal and rubber springing up across china as commuters switch to bike sharing apps.