norman scott to be killed. and we talk about identity politics indian—style. it shocking. the violence in india is shocking, you must have followed the rape of the little girl in kashmir. that happened. but thousands of people marched in support of the rapist, including women. and this dinosaur sold in paris for nearly $2 million. but should we be encouraging the trade in old bones or giving them to scientists? hello.

as the grenfell inquiry gets into analysis of what happened and what went wrong on that fateful night almost a year ago, it is going to be difficult to comprehend how so many tragic errors could be made. today, we had five expert reports on different aspects of the fire — with the message that the cladding fuelled it, and was incorrectly installed, the lifts failed to work effectively, the doors to the flats were non—compliant, the smoke control system did not operate correctly, and new windows had flammable surrounds that helped the fire spread. on top of all of that, the stay—put advice to residents was clearly inappropriate more than an hour before it was discarded. an anatomy of this disaster will perhaps have to explain not just each problem, but why so many could have occurred together? here's chris cook, and his report does contain pictures of the fire spreading and some of its aftermath. fire brigade? hello. in the fire flat in grenfell tower tower. a fire where. it is six minutes to one

on the morning on 14th june last year. this is is the first report of what we now know of as the grenfell tower tower fire. can you come quick please? the fundamental question at the heart of our work is how in london in 2017, a domestic fire developed so quickly and so catastrophically that an entire high rise block was engulfed. today, a series of expert witness reports were published and they included this video that confirms the vertical speed of the fire. here is an image from roughly ten minutes after that first phone call. here ten minutes after that. here's another ten minutes more. and another ten minutes after that.

look at that people, man. the renovation of grenfell tower was key to this this disaster. some of the conclusions of expert reports will already be known, their conclusion that the primary reason for the ferocity and the speed of fire was the use of aluminium panels with a combustible plastic interior. but there were new things that we learned today. that explain how it was that a small kitchen fire became such a catastrophe. one was the importance of so—called crown, an architect eventual architect yule feature. the fire spread through the cladding and ignited the crown and the fire spread within it and fling droplets fell into the cladding,

igniting new fires. this is part of how the fire was able to move across the face of the building. we have spent time talking about the building regulation and the many ways you could get combustible cladding installed on a tall building. but we didn't know which of the legal routes they had used at grenfell tower. the answer we learned today was simple — it was none of them. dr barbara lane's report said: it maybe that grenfell tower was simply waved through on the nod. the inquiry heard

over criticism too. the fire breaks which are designed to contain a fire were not installed properly. inside the building there were fundamental flaws in the window design and problems with things as simple as fire doors. the fire brigade also has questions to answer. their usual advice to people in flats in a fire is to stay put. because normally the fires can be contained inside one flat. representatives of survivors have asked why the policy was not dropped immediately when it became clear the fire was spreading from flat to flat. and dr lane one of the experts said:

this is all preliminary work for the inquiry and we will hear replies from criticised parties later. but a after today some of them face some very pointed questions. now i'm joined from brighton by matt wrack, the general secretary of the fire brigades union. he is restricted in what he can say on some subjects, as he has seen evidence not in the public domain. i wonder what your reaction to what we heard today was. what we saw published today? well, i think it confirms what many of us suspected that there was a series of failings in terms of fire safety in that building. a building that was built in 1974 and at the time would have been a fire safe building, the architects who designed it and the people who built it would have thought about fire safety. as your report explained,

to contain fires to a flat of origin, that is the basis of fire fighting policy and leads on to issues like the stay put issue. but that in this case so many things went wrong. the fire lift didn't work. windows had been fitted incorrectly. the smoke extraction system didn't work. fire doors had been altered and the most... alarming factor, the fact that the building was wrapped in flammable cladding. that is shocking. those are the facts that led to the fire spread on that scale. have you got a theory as to how many things could go wrong. one might expect one thing to go wrong, but that so much could have gone wrong. does it exhibit a complacency with the fire risk in tall buildings? i think complacency is the appropriate word. we have been pointing to some of that for some considerable time. i have been at public meetings

where resident of council estates have been advised by local politicians that fires don't really happen in buildings like that any more. so there is complacency and where our concerns about the inquiry lie are whether it is going to get to grips with how those what our policy decisions were made that in our view have deregulated and fragmented the safety regime that existed in britain in the past. we have to talk about the stay put policy, because clearly it was inappropriate, inappropriate after about 1.26, half an hour after the initial call. the fire by that stage had reached 23 floors. is it your view on the night the forces were flexible enough in their outlook to say, although the rule is stay put, we need to change that rule tonight.

we have had one report and we haven't had other evidence of what happened. we won't pre—judge that. no one nit fire service is running from the questions that need to be addressed. but we don't yet have the evidence of those who attended and tried to fight that fire that night. the implications seems to come across in the reporting that firefighters were sat back in some way. they were risking their lives that night, going up high into that building to save lives. they were removing people from the building. i don't think anyone‘s implying that the firefighters were standing back, it is whether they were sticking too rigidly into the rule, contained fires is what we do and didn't improvise enough on the night when they saw and maybe weren't taught to improvise enough when they saw the fire was not contained. well those are questions that i do

think need to be addressed. i'm not sure we can answer them at the present time. but firefighters were removing large numbers of people from the building. and one question, hypothetical question is if a call is made to an emergency fire control where people say, i have opened my front door and the place is full of thick black smoke, what should i do. probably the safest advice is to shut your front door. we don't know the evidence yet. but we need to see what experience on the night was. in terms of this inquiry, are you scared of the inquiry, or do you welcome the kind of scrutiny i'm giving you now. is this something that will lead

to better decision—making if we get this right? i think it could lead to better decision—making. we have argued for something like 15 years that fire policy has been let go, it has been central government has showed little interest in fire policy for 15 years. and that it should be a turning point. at the time of the fire, lots of people said it will be a turning point. our concern is it doesn't. it needs to be a major change of direction in how we look after buildings in terms of fire safety, the research that might be necessary to research what we are putting on buildings and how the fire service reacts. thank you very much. i'm sure we will talk again about it. it can'tjust be those of us of a certain age who are fascinated by the thorpe scandal. for some of us, of course, it does bring back memories of an engrossing plot, in a different age. a plot replete with the phrase, "bunnies can and will go to france". but for any generation it has

to be a gripping tale — hence the drama featuring hugh grant and the enduring police interest in what happened. we're going to talk to lord steel — david steel — in a moment, he led the liberal party after the thorpe era ended in 1976. but first here's a quick recap of the events. it was in 1961 that thorpe began an affair with norman scott. good morning. and a very, very fine morning it is, too. he was a vulnerable man seeking help. the two had met when thorpe visited stables where scott had been working. problems for thorpe began to mount over the next few years. norman scott was prone to erratic behaviour and began to talk about the relationship, including to the police and to thorpe‘s mother.

jeremy thorpe and his close friend peter bessell became increasingly concerned about the potential damage scott could do to thorpe — now leader of the liberal party. bessell started paying retainers to scott. it's at the end of 1968, that peter bessell claims thorpe said, "we've got to get rid of him", and later, "it's no worse than shooting a sick dog." the alleged conspiracy was born. nothing actually happened to scott at that stage, yet the problem of his blabbing would not go away. in 1971, he met the then liberal mp david steel in the commons and told him about the affair. the liberal party held an inquiry, but exonerated thorpe. unfortunately for thorpe, the issue just wouldn't die. it's alledged by 1974, some kind of action to silence scott was being planned. thorpe managed to divert £20,000 of a party donation to pay a friend to pay a man with a gun to shut

scott up, the story goes. that culminated in the shooting of norman scott's dog in exmoor, but the gun jammed before scott himself could be shot. thereafter, more and more came into the public domain. david steel told thorpe to resign, afterfinding out about the diversion of party funds. thorpe‘s friend peter bessell went public with his story of the conspiracy. at the end of the decade, thorpe was on trial. although acquitted. he disappeared from public life after that, suffering from parkinson's. although he made a poignant appearance at the liberal democrat party conference in 1997. jeremy thorpe died in 2014. that was a very condensed version of the plot. but it is worth also saying that there is also an enduring suspicion that the authorities, or the establishment, tried to protect thorpe and cover—up the affair with norman scott, and panorama last night ran an episode put together at the time of the trial, which made the case

that a lot more had been known about thorpe than the authorities let on. well, let's talk to lord steel who joins us now from selkirk. a very good evening to you. i wonder whether you think surname was guilty of a conspiracy to murder norman scott? —— thorpe. we have to remember that 40 years ago a jury decided he was not guilty and those of us who had worked with him couldn't do anything else but i accept the jury's verdict. that is the way the system worked. let me ask you now, the jury had to find beyond reasonable doubt. let me ask you, and the balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt, do you think it was more than 50% he did engage in that conspiracy? i think that a lot more has come out since the end of the trial, in fact, since he died and peter bessell died and david holmes died, and there is a lot more suggestions, like in the documentary last night, that there might have been a lot

of people who wanted to help protect him. i don't know whether any of that is true or not. it is possible and that is all i can say. there is something strange because what is known and what you know is thorpe did have £10,000 on two occasions diverted into an associate‘s account in the channel islands, which was funnelled to someone. what did you think he was doing with that money or what you think he was doing with that money if he wasn't sending it somewhere to pay a hit man? now, i knew, because it is when i discovered that £10,000 had gone missing and had been used, because this came out i think before the trial. i was told this had happened and that money had gone to david holmes to pay, to retrieve letters. all of that was true. that was the reason... nothing to do with the conspiracy to murder, a question of the misuse of party funds was the reasonjeremy had to go as leader.

what did you think he was doing with the money? he wasn't a thief, not firing it off to his own bank account to buy a car. would you think he was doing with the money? when you heard... a lot of people saying there was a conspiracy. i knew what he was doing with the money, he was buying the letters. not paying hit man or anything like that, buying the letters? there was no suggestion he was using the money for that, not that i was aware of, anyway. previously you said you didn't know he was gay or had a homosexual past until really quite late in the process. none of us knew that. we worked with him in the commons. itjust seems quite incredible because there was quite a lot of talk about flamboyance and then some embarrassing moments where he'd been perhaps a little bit too obvious on occasions at the odd party on things like that. you had absolutely no idea whatsoever? none at all, none of us who work

colleagues of his in the commons were aware of this at all. do you think there was any plan, any establishment plot to cover up the affair? to try and bury it? well, as i said, last night i thought it was quite a good documentary, indicating that the atmosphere at the time was so full of other scandals that there was a mood, so he alleges, among the establishment to say we don't want another scandal. so let's just help him out. i don't know if that is true, but it is certainly plausible. you only had, in that ‘74—79 parliament, something like 39 mps, one with jeremy thorpe, though a lot of people thought conspired to murder someone. another was cyril smith, who now is widely regarded as having

abused a number of young men. did you think there was something wrong with the party at that stage? hang on, hang on, waita minute. be careful what you say about cyril smith as nothing has been proved against him at all. it is all scurrilous hearsay and so far we are waiting for the final outcome of the inquiry. so it is wrong to categorise him in that way. so you don't think cyril smith was guilty of abuse at all? i don't know, but i think we have to wait until the inquiry is finished its work. i don't think it is right to suddenly say he was just because of tittle tattle. right. let me ask you one last question, a complete change of subject if i may, lord steel. you were the sponsor of the abortion, the deregulation of... liberalising abortion laws in the 1960s. a big debate now as to whether that should apply in northern ireland.

there are two principles, one in devolution turns its up to northern ireland on one is in human rights terms abortion should be legal. i wonder which side of that debate you would fall on? in 1967 the law didn't apply to northern ireland because stormont was up and running and they have their own parliament and it was a matter for them. there isn't a parliament functioning in northern ireland at the moment and for that reason, particularly after the referendum in the republic, i think it is a matterfor the uk parliament to decide. so at this point you think the uk parliament could take that decision because it's the legitimate authority? i think so, yes. lord steel, thank you for speaking to us. right, a birthday greeting now. it's the 150th of the trade unions congress this week. it celebrated by releasing an app, worksmart to provide younger workers

with information about their rights, and to encourage them to group together to fight for them. but it is a challenge to attract the young. less than a quarter of the workforce is a member of a union now; that's skewed towards older workers. and last year was the one with the lowest number of strike days since 1891. joining me now is general secretary of the tuc, frances o'grady, and from the institute of economic affairs, len shackleton. good evening both. 150 years on, what is your view of the state of the unions that the moment? i think we are still nearly 6 million strong, 50—50 men and women nowadays. and clearly it still makes a difference, having a union card in your pocket means you are more likely to get better pay, more equal pay, family friendly, training opportunities, health and safety, so it still makes a big difference but it is not good enough.

that is why we recognise that we have a generation of workers out there who are really stuck in low paid, low skill work, often come and feel stuck, want to progress and want to get on at work and we have to find new ways to organise them. where do you think they are the moment? obviously, i listened to frances but i think you can exaggerate the extent to which young people are disadvantaged in this kind of way. the average skill level in the workforce is going up. about two thirds of the people with the zero—hours contract jobs are actually part time, they are not clear things. i think there is a more fundamental problem with unions, that i think are still rooted... we have just been watching, recalling the 1970s. many union activists still behave as if the 1970s are here. we have these southern rail ongoing dispute, which is clearly a backward looking thing about opening doors or shutting doors. is this the kind of thing that

attracts young people on the 21st century? i don't think it is. i think what is at the heart of those disputes are people wanting afair hearing. certainly young people are telling us that actually they want their voice to be heard at work and they don't feel they are being treated with respect. a big issue for young people, for example, is shifts and not being told when you are going to be called in for a shift, having them cancelled at the last minute and not earning enough to get sick pay. being denied holiday pay. these are really basic rights for young people. do you accept the balance of power in the labour market has maybe now tilted a bit far to the employees, towards the employer power? i don't know, the labour market has changed dramatically. one of the things that makes me think that unions are not really part of the picture now is many of the things you are talking about, many of the benefits which people now enjoy in the workforce were not won by the unions but brought

about by legislation. minimum wage and things like that. who thought that the minimum wage if it wasn't unions? rodney bickerstaff was the champion. i also think it is important to say young workers, if they are footballers, if they are firefighters, student nurses or student teachers, they join unions just like anybody else but we have got those workers in mcdonald's, tgi fridays that we're beginning to organise, we want to see many more. your membership, it is staggering. it is massively public sector, people working for the government. in the private sector, only 13% of employers. a huge number of them are graduates, 38% are professional workers. it is very overrepresentation of the middle income full—time... you should be worried you are hitting all the people who don't need unions and you have ignored... we are, that is why our biggest private—sector unions are backing this new initiative to see

if we can organise... it is a way to try and organise. maybe internet works, but also into unions. i think we are seeing signs of hope amongst those workers i mentioned, were getting themselves organise. who would have thought a few years ago we would have a strike against mcdonald's? give frances the benefit of your advice on how you would strengthen the rights of workers in a wide economy you have very little? i think unions are too big, for a start. one of the ways in which they have kind of dealt with falling membership is to merge. so we have these huge great unions. i think it is something like 70% of union membership the six unions, six big unions. these big organisations which don't really relate to the way

in which people work these days. i think you need, need to revisit the origins of the trade unions. rather than these confrontations with southern rail and stuff like this. there are very few strikes. all in the public sector. they are practically gone, you are naming the one that did, 79 strikes in the whole of the country last year. and i don't think it means people are happy and i don't think that is good for productivity. do you agree in the 1970s, i pushed him going the other way, do you think in the 1970s the trade unions exploited their power, their muscle? and that has led to a climate in which there just seems to be for 20 years after that very little, no one was shouting in favour of the unions? i think there were lots of reasons why we didn't retake on the level of membership that we had.

the closing of some of our strongholds, like the pits and changes from big factories to small workplaces, the rise of those insecure contracts like zero hours and agency workers had a big impact. of course, we have had a hostile environment, in terms of the legal framework, with yet another union bashing act just a couple of years ago making it harder for workers to combine together and show each other solidarity, because in the end, our values are the same. it is about the strong helping the week. briefly, we have very high employee implement waits but not high wage rates, is that the choice imposed on the country, you can have lots of people in jobs even if they are not the best? it is a choice. you can do what france does have higher pay and 10—11% unemployed. i think it is very important to keep entry into the workforce available for people and if that means low paid jobs,

that is better than no paid jobs in view. i don't think that is good enough nowadays, is it? we need decent work for everyone. we will leave it there, happy birthday! thank you. thank you both very much indeed. arundati roy won the booker prize 21 years ago with the god of small things. she has kept herself busy writing non—fiction for two decades since — on her home country of india, politics, capitalism, and the environment. until last year, when she published her second novel, which is now out in paperback. it's a moving read, called the ministry of utmost happiness, and it centres around an idiosyncratic guest house built in a graveyard in delhi that attracts those who society views as misfits. it's established by anjum, a woman brought up as a boy, but who was born with both male and female parts. here's a paragraph of the book, about the graveyard guest house, read by arundhati roy. the advantage of the guesthouse in the graveyard was that unlike every other neighbourhood

in the city, including the most exclusive ones, it suffered no power cuts, not even in the summer. this was because anjum stole her electricity from the mortuary, where the corpses required round—the—clock refrigeration. the city's paupers who lay there in air—conditioned splendour had never experienced anything of the kind while they were alive. anjum called her guesthouse jannat — paradise. well, the book raises issues around gender, nationalism, and belonging. in doing so, its relevant notjust to the experience of india right now, but also to identity politics and the debates across the west. i sat down with arundhati roy earlier today, and asked whether the main theme of the book was the power of community. in a way, all of them form a community in the graveyard because they've been,

in some ways, driven out of community too. community in itself isn't something that you can invest with its own virtues, because right now really in india we are looking at the violence of a community trying to form itself and say it's a nation, a hindu nation and everyone else is somehow a second—class citizen. we've heard that stuff before. this is exactly what i think is so interesting about the book, is that there seems to be in the world, notjust in india, a kind of clamouring for a sense of people belonging and it can be quite a destructive clamouring, a sort of nationalism that's quite vicious about those who are not belonging. i wonder why you think it's become such a big part of the world? i think in the world what you're seeing, in a sense, the homogenisation of human society by way of markets where everyone needs to buy the same things, want the same things,

and that creates a kind of psychotic other, which is of needing to belong and needing to try and disengage from that homogenising process. your central character in the book anjum is intersex, born intersex. i'm interested in your take on the gender debates that are raging, really, in the west. i mean, some believe we should take a very much more flexible attitude toward people declaring their own gender as a sort of subjective thing. well, i think anyone who reads the book will know where i am on that. but i do believe that gender is a spectrum and everyone is somewhere on it and that should be the beginning of how we think about it, you know? yeah. you mentioned modi. you're not a fan.

to put it politely! he does not come out of the book well. has he been as bad as you would have feared? yes, because today you're looking at a situation where the muslim community has been ghettoised. you're looking at people being lynched on the streets. you're looking at them being pushed out of economic activity they participated in earlier. you know, meat shops, leather—work, handicrafts — all of this is under assault. the violence in india is terrifying. i mean you all must have followed the rape of the little girl in kashmir. ok, that happened, but thousands of people marched in support of the rapists, including women, you know. in support of the allegedly rapist, let's say. but the point is there was an attempt to change how that

trial was going to take place. so the polarisation is so frightening. do you think modi is worse, from your prospective, worse than a trump or the other kind of nationalistic strong men? the difference is that trump... look at trump. i mean, he's out of control, but all the institutions are so worried about him. then media is worried, the judiciary is worried, the military is worried. people are trying to manage him. whereas in india, all the elite institutions have been, in some ways taken over by this, you know? so you have school textbooks. i mean the new york times did a story, school textbooks of great world leaders with hitler on the cover. you have four supreme court judges who came out, the senior mostjudges below the chiefjustice, who came out — it's never happened in india — they came out and held a press conference and said democracy is in danger, the courts are being fixed, that's what they were implying. what's the reaction in india

to your work, to your essays, your political essays, to this latest novel and the criticisms you make of the direction in india's taking at the moment? the reaction... india's obviously... not a single, harmonious reaction. 0k. anybody who doesn't, who holds views opposed to the government, notjust me but anybody, would be stupid not to feel worried, because that's a stupid thing to do, not to feel worried. ijust think you have to be cautious and you have to know when to shut up and when to move sideways and when to whatever. but certainly, there is a vindictiveness to the way they go after people. you do all your book the ministry of utmost happiness, which is i suppose a more optimistic title. you see, i think that one

of the great ironies, where people like myself are constantly being accused of being anti—india and anti—national and all that, and yet it is us who love that place, you know? not as a nation, not as some government policy statement, but so much of the music, of the poetry, of the river valleys, it is us that are fighting for the... the people. rivers, and mountains, and the people, and the diversity, and things that make it beautiful. i mean, there are many who are fighting and can't afford to do anything and don't have a choice but to fight, you know. but no battle would be worth anything if it didn't come from protecting something that you love. arundhati roy, thank you so much. thank you. earlier this evening a french

auction house sold a dinosaur. a dead one — or the bones thereof. it is actually about 70% complete, a total of nine metres long. and to make it more interesting, it is a newly discovered species of carnivorous dinosaur, discovered on private ground in the us. the french buyer paid more than $2 million. now here's the question — do we like this free trade in dinosaur bones? it's a nice windfall obviously for the person who owns the land on which the relic was found, but it couldn't be said to be their own creation. and scientists worry that if dinosaurs become another form of ostentatious consumption for the very rich — like art — then museums which study dinosaurs will never be able to compete. it is a question of the private versus public interest. i'm joined by emily rayfield, professor of palaeobiology at the university of bristol. very good evening to you. you're the vice president of the society of vertebrate palaeontology.

take us through the argument? as you said the auction to the auction house and asked them to reconsider selling the exhibit. the issue and our position on this is while there are many fossil specimens that are coming out of private lands like this and this specimen was legally collected and exported from the us to france for the sale, our problem lies in the fact that the specimen was auctioned in a very public manner and in a way that was geared particularly to engage a lot of people in the sale and to raise up the price of the specimen. you mentioned in your introduction that the specimen is a new species. we have no evidence

that is actually the case. some people have looked at the specimen and there have been suggestions it contained new features that may be different. the only way we can tell is for scientists to study it. is this much of a trend, are dinosaurs becoming something that i don't know very rich people want to have in their front rooms? i think there is a rise in that kind of issue. for example, this specimen sold for over two million euro, a similar specimen was sold two years ago for 1.1 million. you can see there has been a rise, almost a double in price in two years. i think that is a reflection of the fact that these items are become commodities and are of interest to private investors and perhaps to corporations too. a nice dinosaur skeleton looks good. archaeological artefacts have always been sought? yes there has been a trade in fossil

material and that has been beneficial to science. we do work with many responsible commercial collectors who will find material and document where it came from and that will be made available to museums and institutions to take on as part of their collections. that relationship often works very well. i think here what we are seeing is a real commercialisation of the specimens to the point where they're achieving high prices that are putting them beyond the range of any public institutions to buy. the issue here is us land law. in most parts of world if i discover a dinosaur i don't get to keep it. but in the us you do.

is that, is the united states an important source of dinosaur discovery. the us is one of places in the world where if you find material on private lands and you are entitled to do as you wish with it. the issue is it isjust on private lands. on federal lands that is not permitted and there are rules governing the collecting of important fossil material on federal lands. thank you very much indeed. that's it for tonight. emily here tomorrow. but before we go, we heard over the weekend that french broadcaster canal+ has axed its long—running satirical puppet show, ‘les guignols'. basically, france's version of ‘spitting image‘. did it deserve to be cancelled? we'll leave that to you to decide. good night.

good evening. well, if you arejust off to bed, wondering what is install, more cloud for tomorrow, i'm afraid. it could be a rather grey, dull start the many. in the highlands, some sunny spells. i suspect most of the sunshine tomorrow will be a little bit further east in the places where we had the glorious sunshine today could see a little bit more cloud. generally speaking things are quite quiet with high pressure still in control. north—easterly wind will just drive in more cloud of the north sea coast, and so we start of tuesday morning on a rather dull note. maybe a few isolated showers. temperatures will perhaps hold up underneath the cloud. it isn't going to be too cold start at around nine to be too cold start at around nine to 14 degrees. a rather dull one, and the cloud thick enough for some drizzle, a misty, murky start yet again. but patients, as we go

through the day the cloud will start to thin and break. the exception being across wales, south—west england and northern ireland, the places where we saw the best of the sunshine today could stay rather grey, dull and damp today. with some sunshine coming through it will be ata sunshine coming through it will be at a pleasant day, feeling decent enoughin at a pleasant day, feeling decent enough in the sun. not as warm as it has been, and it may well stay cloudy along those north sea coast. temperatures struggling a little at 15 or 16 degrees. as we go through tuesday night in the wednesday morning, we see further cloud drifting in off the north sea. for the west, we keep those clearer skies. that will allow temperatures to clear away. so it will be a cooler night, a little more co mforta ble cooler night, a little more comfortable for getting a decent night's sleep across the country. with those clear skies, plenty of sunshine to look forward to on wednesday. for the bulk of the day on wednesday the high pressure stays

with us. this little fellow could threaten later on wednesday to thursday. it will be a decent day on wednesday. more sunshine coming through, temperatures up on tuesday's pies, we could see 23 degrees. we could see a little more cloud drifting in across northern england. under the cloud, 15 or 16 degrees. highest values 22 or 23. there is a risk of a few showers developing through the night wednesday into thursday, they could lingerfor wednesday into thursday, they could linger for a wednesday into thursday, they could lingerfor a time on wednesday into thursday, they could linger for a time on thursday morning. the emphasis is with this quiet story to continue. a good deal of dry weather in the forecast over the next few days, and temperatures will sit around 21 or 22 degrees. that's it. good night. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: at least 62 people dead and up to two million affected. guatemala's most active volcano continues to spew superheated gas, ash, and rock. the former north korean spies pinning their hopes on next week's singapore summit to allow them to go home, some, after decades in jail in the south. translation: prison life was really

hard. in south korean society, you needed to convert your ideology. since i said i would not, they kept torturing me for any reason.