passenger flight with 178 passengers on board has crashed into the sea. the boeing 737 was on a flight from the capital jakarta to bangka island off the coast of sumatra. a far—right politician, jair bolsonaro, has won a sweeping victory in brazil's presidential elections. he took more than 55% of votes cast in the second round run—off against fernando haddad of the left—wing workers‘ party. mr bolsonaro has promised to slim down central government and tackle violent crime. officials in pittsburgh have named the 11 people murdered at a synagogue on saturday, said to be the deadliest attack on the jewish community in us history. the victims included a married couple and two brothers. if convicted, the alleged killer, robert bowers, faces the death penalty. now on bbc news, dateline london. hello and welcome to

dateline london, the programme where some of the uk's leading journalists sit down with international correspondents who file their stories for the folks back home with the dateline, ‘london‘. this week: king salman promises to punish those responsible for killing jamal khashoggi. should the world punish saudi arabia? the plight of china's muslim minority. and as the us midterm elections aspproach, do bad words beget bad actions? with me is christina lamb, chief foreign correspondent with the the sunday times. janet daley, columnist with the sunday telegraph. mustapha karkouti from gulf news. and the us journalist michael golfdarb, host of the podcast the first rough draft of history. perhaps the most chilling image of the week shows a prince clutching the hand of a bereaved subject, offering condolences

on the killing of his father. it's mohammed bin salman, crown prince of saudi arabia, meeting the son ofjamal khashoggi, a dissidentjournalist whom the saudis now admit was murdered by their own intelligence officers. the expression on salah khashoggi's face is hard to interpret. if the allegations are correct, he is shaking hands with the man who ordered his father's death. this week, prince salman condemned the killing, turkey pulled back from publicly accusing him, and only germany decided to suspend arms sales. mustapha, do you think that the prince bin salman is out of the woods? is he safe now? it looks like it, absolutely. it all depends on his father. he is the ultimate authority. he is the guy who decides what. but let's notjump to any conclusion now because things take their own course in the gulf.

we might find an action on his fate maybe later in one, two or three years down the road. that is how things go. that is, of course, if he is confirmed to be behind the killing. but in my opinion, the question of who actually ordered the killing will never be known, in my view. for the rest of our lives. that is how things are anyway. what about the consequences, janet, for saudi arabia's reputation? we had this big international future finance initiative took place, a few high profile people didn't turn up, a lot of international politicians, plenty of people did and were quite happy to be seen with the prince. there were precious few consequences for saudi arabia's future. that's the long and short of it. interestingly, khashoggi's fiancee has refused an invitation

from trump to the white house because she doesn't feel that the usa is taking any serious action against saudi arabia. and with respect, i didn't find the facial expression of his son difficult to interpret at all. he looked absolutely terrified and appalled. the interesting question is why was this so crassly, amateurishly done? and why did they perpetrate this ridiculous story? it reminds me of the salisbury russia incident. maybe these people are not incompetent thugs and fools, maybe they are defiant, arrogant bustards, if you will forgive the language, who really feel they can get away with anything and know they can get away with anything. it doesn't matter if they tell absurd lies about what they have just done. they are not going to take the consequences. saudi arabia is too much of a stupendous business opportunity for the west and they are not going to suffer any consequences. it is interesting whenjanet says about business opportunities, because clearly mohammed bin salman‘s plans for the country

are hugely dependent on getting foreign money in. that was the whole point of this initiative. i think foreign direct investment in saudi arabia fell from nearly 7.5 billion in 2016 to 1.4 billion last year. there is surely not the sign of enough money and enthusiasm to meet the demand for 12% unemployment and he wants to create 450,000 jobs over two years? he is trying to diversify the economy away from oil and he is getting good publicity for it, everybody seems to have been dazzled by his reforms and have ignored the other things that are happening. i was quite angry when the coverage and discussion of the women being allowed to drive, because i had been in touch for years with some of the women activists who were lobbying for that who had been locked up. that didn't seem to get very much coverage. now it seems as though, i think, mbs, if he was behind this, he has got away with a number of things without any

international criticism. he probably thought he could get away with this. frankly, if it was just about killing jamal khashoggi, there were other ways to do it which wouldn't have been so obvious. this looks like it was sending a message. sending a message. it is interesting to pick up on what christine was saying, 15 years ago this month i was in saudi arabia on a sisa obtained for me byjamal khashoggi. he was working in the london consulate because he had lost his job as the editor of al—watan in saudi arabia but he had protection from within the royal family from another prince. we had long conversations about they were afraid... i finally got a visa and i went, i spent three weeks on my own, i wasn't supposed to be on my own but the ministry of islamic guidance never turned up to provide me with guidance. so i made my programme.

the thing that i take away from all of this is that the royal family is huge and it is factional. 0ne faction, the faction of the prince is in the ascendant. when he took over, the west was saying, "0h, this is the moderniser." as you were saying. it was jamal khashoggi writing in the washington post saying not to believe it, "it is all cosmetic, the guy is not, this is angering," and he no longer had this protection. that is, i think, why he ended up dead. i think the reason that they were angry about him doing it was because of what you have said, he was an insider who represented the house of saud. the man was an insider for a very long time. it is only in the last 12 or 13 months that he was out and about.

all his life, he was a part of the establishment. do you think some of those foreign policies established in other countries are, mustapha, better the devil you know and the fear that whatever his flaws, picking fights with qatar and canada and the war in yemen and this terrible incident, if it is indeed attached to him, it is better than the alternatives? we can hear now what we hear in the media. it is not necessarily... there is a system in the kingdom, you inherit the state from your father or from your brother. it was the case before that you would take it from your brother. king salman changed the norm and he gave it now to his son. so that certainly angered a lot of people, no doubt. in this enormous royal family? to go back to jamal khashoggi's location or place in that set—up,

he has always been a close, loyal to the authority and to the establishment itself. if there was anything which led to his murder, in my view, it was not political but personal more than anything else. but it is a warning to every dissident. well, yes, the warning has been there forever. in the entire middle east. that, "we can get away with anything? " yeah. do you think there will be consequences for mbs because, as you said, he is upset with a lot of people and has changed the system, he has cut out other strands of the royal family and locked up all those princes in the ritz carlton hotel. locking up the other princes in the ritz hotel was welcomed by the people of saudi arabia.

i'm talking about other people in the royal family now being upset with him. this is nothing new, it is coming to the surface, maybe. it has always been there, hidden behind. it is quite a soap opera. the uk government has told china of its "serious and growing concerns" about the treatment of uyghurs, a muslim minority, most of whom live in the north west province of xinjiang. there are 10 million uyghurs, but human rights campaigners say up to i million of them are in detention camps. the bbc has seen analysis of open source satellite images that suggest the number of secure, prison—like facilities has more than doubled in the last two years. china has not responded to the bbc investigation. back in the summer, chinese diplomats said they were dealing with the threat of islamist terrorism through " resettlement and re—education." if so, it is on an extraordinary scale. it is astonishing seeing those pictures.

people interned and seeing the chinese tv, state tv footage when they talked about the re—education and said that people were enjoying it and that it was making life more colourful. that sounds like quite a euphemism! a few years ago, i went to guantanamo and at that point, there were uyghurs there, i think there were 22 of them. this is one of the arguments that the chinese are using that they are islamic terrorist and need re—educating. actually, the uyghurs in guantanamo were caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time and then no one knew what to do with them because they said it would be dangerous for them to return home. i think some of them were sent to bermuda and albania and all kinds of places. the argument made by the chinese is that this is something that they are trying to deal with, the islamist terrorist threat,

there have been incidents like in 2014 when more than 100 people were killed in attacks which they blamed on uyghurs. one of the big groups is actually listed as a terrorist organisation by the british and american governments. i'm glad you brought up the historical because this didn't come out of nowhere. what happened was the chinese are trying to move people off the coasts. they are sending people, han chinese, encouraging them to go to xinjiang. this is in the middle of nowhere in central asia. the western part of china. and local uyghurs were being pushed out and they came out onto the streets and demonstrated, there was violence. there was that kind of thing, not so much islamist terrorism. just like what happened in tibet? tibet is exactly the comparison point. china is an ethnically diverse, vast country.

but the han chinese are, by and large, the great majority and this state is trying to move people around. the communist leadership has no problem forcing new movements of populations, it doesn't come out of, "oh, there are jobs here so we'll all go to where the jobs are." i think what you've got is a situation where they are trying to control the population and there is no better way than controlling the population than by putting one in ten of them in a prison camp. that is nature of the chinese regime at its heart. they have a lot of people and they use very blunt tools to try and reshape the organisation of their society. what do you think it tells us about xi jinping's vision for china? it reminds me of tiananmen square and the cultural revolution. this is the chinese particular brand of totalitarianism.

rewiring people's brains so they come out either dead or agreeing with you. that seems to be the chinese model and it is not... the business of the internal minority, the russians and the chechens. there are parallels. but the chinese seem to have a particular way of going about it. people thought that as china had economic prosperity, people would then start wanting political change. and that things would change and thatjust hasn't happened. in the history of china, we have seen that before in 1976, i think, during the cultural revolution. mao zedong at that time felt that the people needed to be re—educated. the scale of this is staggering and the global times reported between january and march of this

year, 461,000 people had been relocated ‘to improve social stability and unity‘. it's amazing figures. when you think of the scale of the cultural revolution, everyone with an education or a middle—class occupation was suspect and was re—educated forcibly. you have to have your red book, remember? in your pocket all the time. we have spoken so often about islam and being understanding of islam in the west, pakistan just last week has inked up a new trade pact with china with whom it shares a border on the other side of the mountains. the chinese say islamists but they do a lot of business with islamic countries. and with the gulf. people forget about this. now, ahead of a meeting

with her mps this week, one unnamed colleague apparently told a newspaper that theresa may "should bring her own noose." words are one thing, actions quite another — as donald trump's press secretary said in response to suggestions that his sometimes violent invective had contributed to the atmosphere in which parcel bombs were sent to leading public figures, including barack 0bama and hillary clinton. michael, you are just back from the united states, in the last week or so, taking the temperature on the campaign trail from the mid—term elections. do you see a sense in which the political debate has become more polarised and in which words are influencing actions? it is a very good question. at street level you don't see or feel anything. it is all through the media. people are getting in their cars and are in trafficjams on the interstates around the cities, it is what

they watch at night. people don't talk about politics anymore to one another. they sort of know where they are coming from and being middle—class protestant or middle—class catholic in northern ireland, it is just not discussed. we simply won't discuss it, what we are having for dinner is what we talk about. it is odd that way. that the poison is out there is indisputable. we could have a whole seminar about why we shouldn't cover president trump the way we cover him. i mean we, the news media. every day, every single day, every time he opens his mouth. 0r tweets, and these tweets where he talks about "this is fake news," and, "these are the enemies of the people." there is an inevitability that it will tip someone over. and, to be honest with you, i am surprised it hasn't happened more often. this is not, by the way i should say, it didn't start with donald trump. right—wing talk radio really burst

out in the early 1990s and in 1993 timothy mcveigh and some accomplices blew up a federal building. "the federal government is our great enemy," they blew up a federal building in oklahoma city and killed more than 180 people. it is, sadly, part of american discourse and i think it is quite extraordinary that it doesn't happen more often. agreed, but, bizarrely, when he attacked the media for stoking this rage and this frustration, he attacked the mainstream media which is critical of him. now, if it was the mainstream media that was responsible for an outbreak of violence, those people would be attacking him and his supporters, not the people who agree with them. the whole logic of the thing seemed to have been completely turned around and he became... when he is teleprompter trump, he is mr peace and harmony, when he is tweet trump, he is this bizarre, absurd, there's no other..

i mean demagogic figure who gets people to chant 'lock her up'! he gets huge armies of people to clamour for, at one point, he actually said he wanted to punch someone, a protester in the crowd and see him carried out on a stretcher and the crowd cheered. what does he think is going to happen as a consequence of this? this kind of division in american society is not new. i go way back and i remember the protests over the vietnam war and i remember the civil rights demonstrations and i remember three civil rights activists being murdered in mississippi. and i remember kent state university students being shot by the national guard. this kind of division and polarisation isn't new, what is new is that the president, the president seems to be involved in this war. and, oddly enough, the predecessor who is most like trump in the sense of his own paranoia and sense of personal victimhood was richard nixon.

but richard nixon famously, one night, if you remember, left the white house and went out and talked to the demonstrators who were protesting about the vietnam war. and he talked to them in a very civil, courteous way and he claimed afterwards that it had changed his mind. that's when he decided to withdraw from vietnam. can you see trump doing that? that is the closest in modern american history to the pattern that trump is setting. he is talking like something out of a mid—20th century horror story. totally coming from a different material point of view... he spoke at one point about migrants 'infesting' communities in america. likening them to vermin. does he know nothing about 20th—century history? nothing! the president on cnn said the other day that words matter. if you are the most powerful man on earth saying things like that,

it will have an effect. james clapper, one person who received one of the devices, we don't know what the motive was so we should leave it for the investigation, he said that he doesn't think there is automatically a link but he did say that, "i do think that donald trump bears some responsibility for the coarsening of civility and the dialogue in this country." but then you also have a democratic congresswoman — maxine waters — saying to people that if you see anyone from the current administration in a department store or a petrol station or restaurant, you should go out and create a crowd and you should push back on them. not physically but tell them they are not welcome here or anywhere. the hostility is spreading across the board. really. some proportion here, the difference between sending a pipe bomb to barack 0bama and going up to mitch mcconnell in a restaurant and saying... hang on, but donald trump is only accused of using language and coarsening it. that has happened across the board. he is normalising that sort of aggression and licensing it. it's the lying as well.

i remember the idea that saying that the us president has lied was something that people really wrestled with. now, i can't remember the washington post count, it is thousands of times he has lied now. i think the way that he has been talking and behaving, we are seeing a change, notjust in the usa but in other places. because people look up to that country. look at saudi arabia. we have seen that happening before. words matter, especially when they come from the president. i mean, a congressman can say whatever he wants, a congresswoman, but when they come from his mouth, the president... and there's also an ecology around him. the bomb story started breaking on wednesday when the first bomb was turned up at george soros's house in suburban new york. just down the road from where the clintons live.

and almost immediately, a dozen very popular right—wing radio talk—show hosts were tweeting like mad. "this is a plot by the left. "it is a liberal hoax. "they are trying to win the midterms by blaming it on trump." now, i haven't seen a thing from them since the arrest yesterday. but this is all part of an ecology. and the president spends all his time listening to them, he spends four hours every morning watching fox news. sometimes calling in instead of reading his intelligence briefs, by the way. he talks on the phone and the chinese and russians listen, it is a messy situation. it is absolutely true that as the president, he sits on top of all of this. and what is happening and what is disturbing, coming back from america after the last three weeks, is that there is still... i was down at the border in texas, the wine club monthly meeting in a border town,

drinking wine down there, everyone else was drinking tequila. they will tell you, "ted cruz, we don't like him. "donald trump, an embarrassment." "who are you going to vote for?" "republican. " "why? " "because they are making money." the cynicism, the brutal cynicism of about 40% of the american public, or 38%. 2% are like the guy who sent out the bombs and they are dangerous. i have really fallen out with some republican friends of mine in new york who are not millionaires. it is not money for them, they hated, hated hillary clinton with a vengeance. i mean they were obsessed with this idea that supreme courtjustices were going to be appointed who would institute this liberal hegemony and be there for life. they are social conservatives and

they were adamant that hillary clinton should never be president. that fits into the equation as well. i was going to say that this has an effect, you talk about the usa, people around the world look at the us president. brazil goes to the polls tomorrow for an election where it looks like they are about to elect a man who has abused women, abused homosexuals, is racist. now it seems like it is ok to do that. it would have been unthinkable for a public figure to make these kinds of statements. the political correctness is huge in america and the #metoo movement... and yet, this guy who admits to having abused women is unquestionably popular... well, he is not unquestionably popular, he is maintained in the presidency. it is not like being a prime minister, it is idolised in america. the presidency sets the tone for the public discourse. yesterday, when he was going on, sorry, friday, when he was going on about peace and harmony,

the absurdity of that! you had to laugh if you didn't cry! it wasjust... it's like a very bad joke. it is quite surreal at this point. look at america, the whole world looks at america in the same way. you say it's a bad joke. thank you all for delivering such commendable punch lines. thank you very much for watching and i will be back at the same time next week. from all of us on the programme, good night. hello. after a week that brought some dramatic changes in our weather, from being very mild

in the middle of last week, to very cold this weekend, it looks like the pattern for the week ahead will also see things swinging from one extreme to the next. pretty quiet and chilly start, milder midweek, and then potentially pretty stormy by friday. here we are first thing on monday. a widespread frost, perhaps minus four, minus five in the west. eastern coastal counties always a little bit milder, thanks to the breeze off the north sea. that will feed a few showers in here again on monday. this front tries to get into the west, but it's not going to have much luck. it will, though, feed some high cloud into northern ireland and western scotland, so the sunshine a little bit hazier here through the second part of the day. a lot of fine weather around. temperatures still, though, somewhat below average. perhaps not feeling quite as cold, though, without the keen northerly wind. 0vernight monday into tuesday, low pressure rolling up from the continent heads into the north sea. this is causing us some uncertainty in our forecast for tuesday, just how closely it will graze the eastern side of the uk. at the moment, it looks like eastern counties will get some rain and experience some quite strong winds. just how far that pushes onto our shores, though, does remain in question.

for many, though, again the prospect of a reasonable day, if somewhat on the cool side. that low, however, will be away to the north tuesday into wednesday, and through wednesday daytime, we're going to start to feed this front in from the atlantic, with a southerly airflow. that is going to make things feel considerably milder to the south of the uk come wednesday afternoon. temperatures back closer to average — not the warmth we had last week, but perhaps up to 13 in london with some sunshine. some heavier rain possible, though, further west. some sunshine for the north—east of scotland, but i think still feeling quite chilly here. then it all turns into a bit of a mixed up mess wednesday into thursday. clearest thinking for us at the moment is that we'll see a weather front to the east of the uk on thursday, bringing some rain through the day that will eventually clear out into the north sea. some showers in the west, but generally, again,

not a bad day. we're talking about temperatures getting into the average range of figures by the time we get to thursday. friday promises something mild. it also promises something pretty unpleasant. mild air coming in from the atlantic as this low rolls across us. this is the remnants of tropical storm 0scar. it looks like a bullseye. tightly packed isobars mean strong to gale—force winds widespread across the uk on friday, the potential for some very heavy rain as well. so in the week ahead, we go from a chilly, quiet, calm start again into a stormy picture. all change in the days ahead. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers

in north america and around the globe. my name is lewis vaughanjones. our top stories: a passenger plane with 188 on board has crashed into the sea near indonesia. a search and rescue operation is under way. with a promise to protect freedom and democracy, jair bolsonaro, the far—right candidate, wins brazil's presidential election. a vigil for the eleven worshippers shot dead at a synagogue in pittsburgh in the worst anti—semitic attack in recent us history. and we're on the campaign trail in trump country, where the mid—term election polls are finely balanced.