zisan 1 is an in’iteres‘iting him. i think that is an interesting reason, because viewers to knight think that's peter hain is not someone think that's peter hain is not someone who necessarily would associate with this whole issue. there has been some criticism and suggesting, you know, it is an act that will boost his own public profile, and there is no surprise he has been touring broadcasters did use tonight. it'll be interesting to see what the kings and findings in court are on this, and if it is found that these allegations don't stand up, then i think there is going to be an almighty row. you highlighted your misgivings, despite your profession. do you think that isa your profession. do you think that is a typical view, would most journalists think, we have got to get the truth out? i was in westminster when the news broke that peter hain had said something in the house of lords, and of course, immediately, it became a hive of activity, journalist rushing around trying to get the story out as

quickly as they could. but with to really sort of stopping to think about the ethics of it. i mean, it wasjust an about the ethics of it. i mean, it was just an instinctive about the ethics of it. i mean, it wasjust an instinctive reaction, professionaljournalist going wasjust an instinctive reaction, professional journalist going about their job. professional journalist going about theirjob. they knew that having intent under parliamentary privilege, they were not allowed to report that, and it was their professional duty to do so. but i do think we ought to stop and consider whether it actually was and the public interest. there was no question of preventing it, and that is another question, whether philip green's attempt to suppress this information was sensible or not, because it is very difficult to keep these things and adverts for longer thana these things and adverts for longer than a few hours. especially in the world of social media. there is a reminder on the front of the financial times that the injunction is in place, because there is an e—mail that the financial times is

mentioning from the telegraph's deputy editor about the fact that they have to be very cautious of what they say. that newspaper banker highlighted because of sir philip green's background. you can imagine there's not much goodwill of his reputation and his formerjudgment. it is interesting that in 2016, the house of commons approved the honours of forfeiture committee reviewing his knighthood in light of the sale of the bhs to a former racing driver who had no experience running a major retailer, which endedin running a major retailer, which ended in disaster. philip green's association with monaco, i think it is unsurprising, in a sense, that people don't want to give him the benefit of the doubting a general yes, that business has been chequered. colourful, but when he

ran bhs, it was a good shop. yes. fair enough. we have got to be very careful what we say. as i said, the injunction is still in place, and he himself has said very clearly in a statement that he'd refused to comment on anything that had happened in court was said in parliament, but denied any unlawful behaviour. shall we move into several territory? let's could your paper, john. the independent is talking about what a no—deal brexit would cost the young, and the same £100,000 each. how have you come to that figure? we haven't. the act a campaigning newspaper, and we are campaigning newspaper, and we are campaigning for another referendum on brexit. the independent did not support us leaving the european union, and still hopes that it might be diverse. this is a way of trying

to dramatise the economic cost of brexit, which i think is incontrovertible. and this figure has been worked out by a bright chap at oxford university, and has been endorsed byjohn at oxford university, and has been endorsed by john major, at oxford university, and has been endorsed byjohn major, the former prime minister. it isjust a way of trying to dramatise the cost of brexit, and the fact that it a lot because will be borne by the young people, of course, who tended to vote against it. and to those who say there is a breath of project see about that, what would you say?” would defend the story, because project here is actually true, to a limited extent. there is an economic consensus limited extent. there is an economic consensus that there will be costs to leaving the eu. there might be very good reasons, which i am sympathetic to, foreign leaving, but

you have got to accept, and this is something that politicians are generally unable to do that they will be costed leaving, and that there are arguments to leaving, you have got to say that those benefits of living would outweigh the cost, and that is something that the british people would have to decide. what do you make of this? i think the problem is that the country has become so polarised over this issue. as you say, i think the brexit supporters will just say, as you say, i think the brexit supporters willjust say, as you mentioned, this is project fear. everyone has become so intense in their positions. i think this is looking longer term at what a no—deal brexit could entail will stop this report suggests that gdp could contract by 8% over 15 years. i think we have seen short—term warnings about, for example, the uk having to buy all of these lorries because of blockages imports. we would have the source emergency supplies of food and medicine. it is interesting to see this week the

politics as well. even haven't brexiteers seem to be moving in a deal scenario, and scrabbling around to look at other alternatives to the laws checkers proposals put forward by the prime minister. and the government would see a no—deal brexit is not what they want, . .. but they are preparing for it. bike well, if you are negotiating, that has always got to be a realistic possibility otherwise it is not a proper negotiation. the guardian's front page. they are those are talking about sir philip green, but we will talk more about the other leads, which is the dna testing story. yes, the home secretary has had to apologise for the home office roly moving from a system requesting

the voluntary option to get their dna to support an application to reside in the uk to demanding it. this assorted netted a50 people, and many afghans who are working for the betty's forces, doctor soldiers who are rocking and the same position. i think there has been a centre of adage that people are being treated like this, forced to hand over their biometric data. huge questions about privacy. quite easy for savid javid to stand up and apologise, because it mainly refers first two abidi before he came in. it was in 2012, and theresa may was home secretary, and theresa may was home secretary, and she talked about the hostile agenda for illegal immigrant, and thatis agenda for illegal immigrant, and that is when i think some of this system of dna collection was introduced. and pitting your defence hat on, these are people performing vital roles. absolutely, who should be sacked, and their contribution,

protecting the nation, should be acknowledged. —— who should be thanked. looking at brexit, the fact that if immigration officers cannot cope with the current system, the idea that they will be able to move toa idea that they will be able to move to a vastly more complex system is raised and and a thought on this in terms of how far back one looks for bread the problem arose. well, there are a numberof bread the problem arose. well, there are a number of these problems coming back from theresa may's period as home secretary. including the windrush generation. indeed. she was the architect of the hostile environment, promising difficult it is without originally started, but it was definitely do believe the home office was moving well she was home office was moving well she was home secretary, was to try and make life as difficult as possible for

illegal immigrant, but then obviously, that had a knock—on effect on legal immigrants. i mean, if you are going to require legal immigrants to prove family connections with a dna sample, then that can be quite a difficult and be humiliating for some people. we have got a couple of minutes to end by your thoughts on the front of the telegraph, but this is in relation to the united states, these mail bomb scares. the latest to receive something through the post, robert de niro and joe biden. all sorts of arguments about what may be behind this, a good deal of speculation. what you make of what this is saying and predators going? yes, it is interesting. we are seeing crude pipe bombs sent to ten people, all notably critics of donald trump who have been vilified by the bright in the united states. it is interesting to see how direct it has changed from the president. at the beginning, when we thought barack

0bama and the clintons had been sent these exports of devices, he wanted civility, absolutely. you are basing your eyebrows! sending an explicit device through the post is not settled. i think we can all agree on that. since then, he is now looking for other scapegoats and using this asa for other scapegoats and using this as a chance to bash the media, blaming the media on creating an atmosphere of anger and toxicity. bike he is desperate time to get away from ending sense of responsibility himself, because he uses quite violent language to criticise his opponents, talking about locking up crooked hillary. which, obviously, with lead a reasonable person to suppose that he might have played some role in inciting this kind of offal behaviour. does it necessarily go that far? can you make that connection? i think you can. the

coarsening of the national debate. if the president of the presidential candidate is going that far, it gets pretty much feeling for anyone in the country to do the same. pretty much feeling for anyone in the country to do the samelj pretty much feeling for anyone in the country to do the same. i get the country to do the same. i get the impression he is squirming lately guilty skill by, who has realised that he has based the language of little bit too far, and is desperately lasting out that other people to try and spread the blame. we may return to this when you are next here, which will not be far into the future. into the future. that's it for the papers this hour. thank you, lucy and john. you'll both be back at 11.30pm. hello there. we have had quite a lot of sunshine

and a lot of warmth as well. the mild air across the country will be replaced by much colder air moving down from the arctic into the weekend. we will also have a strong, better northerly wind too. yes, it will turn much colder this weekend. quite a bit of sunshine around too, particularly on the high ground in the north. the mail there will be slowly replaced by colder air behind those cold front. that is slowly moving southwards, introducing this called to scotland and northern ireland tonight, with plenty of blustery showers and increasingly wintry in the scottish mountains. the weather front will go through portions of england and wales. not as cold as in north, and it will also be a few showers and run. eventually the weather frankly is awake, and this in turn makes an appearance, but the colder will be

there. plenty of blustery showers. these will be wintry in nature, even with some hail and thunder. went to the weekend, we see the peak of this arctic blast. it is good to be bitterly cold. there will be plenty of showers in coastal areas, whereas further inland, you should see plenty of sunshine. but you will have a strong, bitterly cold northerly wind. these are the temperatures. seven to 9 degrees. add on the wind, closer to the low single figures. it really will feel more like winter. as we head into sunday, we start to see the wind change moving and from the north—east. the north sea is actually fairly warm at the moment, of the showers will be of high elevation. we could see a little bit of snow there. a lot of places will be dry on sunday, and the temperatures may be a happy degree

arsenal on saturday's. slowly, it will time less cold as the week wears on. this is bbc news, i'm julian worricker. the headlines at 11pm. sir philip green categorically denies allegations of unlawful sexual or racist behaviour, after being named in parliament as the businessman who took out an injunction against the daily telegraph. i feel it is my duty under parliamentary privilege to name philip green as the individual in question, given that the media have been subject to an injunction eventing publication of the full details of the story. illegally forced to take a dna test, the home secretary apologises to hundreds of people who were told to prove they were entitled to settle in the uk.

the fbi says it's stepped up its hunt for whoever is behind a series of crude bombs sent to leading democrats and critics of president trump. also coming up: debenhams becomes the latest retailer to announce the closure of high street stores.