pardon me, ma'am... excuse me, that's enough. mr president, one other question if i may ask on the russian investigation, are you concerned that you may have... i'm not concerned about anything with the russian investigation, because it's a hoax. that's enough. put down the mic. mr president, are you worried indictments coming down in this investigation? mr president... i tell you what, cnn should be ashamed of itself, having you working for them. you are a rude, terrible person, you shouldn't be working for cnn. jim acosta, the victim there of a presidential tongue lashing, and we heard a lot about donald trump this week and about tuesday night's midterm elections in the united states, not all of it was welcome to everyone. including steven blakemore. whilst i do understand the importance of this week's midterm us elections they have rather eclipsed other news, particularly from europe. for example, by comparison how much coverage of the devastating tomorrow coverage of the devastating storms and floods in italy?

time and time again, the bbc will focus on what's happening across the atlantic, and follow stories coming from america, rather than closer to home in europe. perhaps it's a language issue, perhaps it's a cultural issue. perhaps it's one reason why so many people in this country don't identify with or feel strongly enough about europe, to want to be part of the eu. the united states featured again in the headlines of thursday's news at one, but it was the precise wording here, which caught the ear of another viewer. emboldened by success in the midterm elections, donald trump fires his attorney general, and bans a cnn reporter from the white house. ian gilmore seized on a phrase used by clive myrie there, asking: that same bulletin at 1.00

on thursday attracted criticism for leading on the line from prince charles, in a documentary to mark his 70th birthday, that he would stop speaking out on topics he feels strongly about when he become king. strongly about when he becomes king. the item ended like this. and the prince, son and heir: charles at 70, will be shown on bbc one at 9.00 tonight and it will be available after that on the bbc iplayer. john sadler objected to the news priority shown by the bulletin‘s running order. he recorded this video for us. i was appalled to see that the top story was about prince charles, when he became king. the second item on the news was about 12 people being shot dead in a massacre in california.

i think the reason for this was because the programme about prince charles later in the evening, so shame on you bbc so shame on you bbc for putting the news that way round, and at least later in the day you got it in the right order, so please don't make that kind of mistake again. last sunday's interview on the andrew marr show with aaron banks provoked a storm of controversy before it had aired. the businessman is the subject of a criminal investigation into claims that he was not the true source of £8 million loaned to his leave.eu campaign in the 2016 referendum, claims which he denies. thousands of people contacted the bbc, arguing he was not a suitable guest for the programme. with terence bowen writing: when the interview was broadcast it

proved a testy encounter. where did the money originally come from? i'm telling you it came from a uk company... which? that had cash generated in the uk. which uk company? rock services, we've... rock services is a shell company, it doesn't generate money. you've just said it's a shell company. you told parliament that rock services was just a service company, you've told me something very different today. i haven't seen the actual transcript of that, i will go back and look back and look at that, but i'm telling you the source of the funding was rock services.

opinions were divided about whether interviewer or interviewee came better out of that, but on wednesday mr banks tweeted he has bumped or dropped from next week's question time. david dimbleby had said on air that aaron banks was going to be on next thursday's programme but the bbc said in a statement that: well, let's talk about the interview which did take place withjohn neil, the editor of the andrew marr show, why did you decide to interview aaron banks last sunday? aaron banks made the single biggest donation in british political history to the unofficial leave campaign, and on tuesday, the electoral commission published a six page document which set out questions that it still thinks needs answering about where the money came from aaron banks passed on to leave.eu, and then on thursday, the national crime agency announced they were undertaking a criminal investigation into these details, so on sunday there was a clear public interest in doing that interview, and it is a news story and we're a news programme and it's

an obvious interview for us to want to do. of course this was after we knew he was under investigation by the national security agency, who look into serious and organised crime, is it right for the bbc to have decided to interview him under those circumstances? i can see why people are concerned about this. i mean, absolutely i think it is, so, first of all if we deal with the legal side of it, so aaron banks has denied any wrongdoing all the way along, he has never been charged or arrested with any crime so proceedings aren't active, so there's no legal impediment to us doing the interview, we can't prejudice any future trial, but at the same time i can see it is an unusual interview to do but i think it is purely unusual because it's not very often that people who are under criminal investigation will do a live tv news interview, but i think that is largely because their lawyers advise them not to. in this instance aaron banks was happy to do the interview and we wanted to do the interview with him, because as i said, there were very clear questions that hadn't been answered about where the money came from that went into leave.eu. even if there is no legal reason why

you couldn't do the interview can you not see why many viewers were concerned that it might prejudice a future trial and the bbc should have been thinking about that? we were thinking about it. and you know, again, the answer comes back to the fact that legally there was no impediment whatsoever to that interview. again, mr banks has not been charged, he hasn't been arrested so there is no active proceedings, and as there is no active proceedings there is no reason for us not to do the interview. i will say again, you know, it is an unusual, i think it is an unusual occurrence to interview someone who is under criminal investigation but that tends to be because those people tend not to do interviews or they certainly tend not to do news interviews on the advice of their lawyers, but we didn't have that problem. have you asked people in similar circumstances? under criminal investigation? i don't think i have. i can't think of an instance where we have, but there is no reason we wouldn't. 0ne doesn't come to mind but again there is no reason we wouldn't do that. bbc editors would say we're always in charge

of the interviews, but some viewer think what you did was give aaron banks a platform. i mean, i have a slight issue with the word platform because that implies that he has been invited on to give a speech and go unchallenged, and i think anyone who watched the interview will be able to see we clearly did challenge him, we challenged him on where the money had come from and we kept bringing it back to that central underlying question when the interview moved elsewhere, so it isn't a platform, it's an interview and that's what we do. i got sent some documents, a ream of documents i got sent, various e—mail chains and bank statements on friday, so all of friday, from mr banks so through friday and saturday night, we went through all of the document, all of the documents, i went through them and we had some expertise inside the bbc who helped and you know, the same question that i had at the start, before we received the e—mails which is where did the money come from still seemed to the same question at the end of going through those e—mails, so that's the line of questioning that we wanted to stick to and we knew we would be able

to pull him back to that line of questioning. when you said expertise, was that legal expertise looking over those documents he sent in? it was reporters in the bbc who have sort of looked, have worked on the aaron banks story previously. looking back, what would you say the interview achieved? i think it achieved a couple of things. i have already talked about going through the documents, and you know, to try and find an evidence trail of where the money had come from that went into leave.eu, and we then used that as our central theme throughout the interview. we didn't get a clear answer to that, and i think that that in itself raises new questions. and then there was a second sort of very clear thing i thought we got i thought we got out of it, which is that the evidence that aaron banks gave to the select committee of mps chaired by damian collins was different to the answer that he gave us on the andrew marr show about where the money had come from and the role of rock services limited his uk—based company, in that process, and i think that bears further scrutiny and i think

that moves the story on, and there will be more questions to be asked about it. john neil, thank you. thank you for all your comments this week. if you want to share your opinions on bbc news and current affairs or even appear on the programme: that is all from us, we will be back to hear your thoughts about bbc news coverage next week. goodbye. good evening. there is some nasty travelling weather out and about, because we have got a really large area of low pressure descending on the uk, it will be with us throughout the weekend. the extent of the cloud stretches from spain up towards iceland, now that massive cloud is giving us a lot of heavy rain and it is also tied in with

strong to gale force winds, gusty winds, so the combination of the winds, so the combination of the wind and the rain and the spray and standing water, making for some atrocious conditions on the faster routes. it has been pushing in slowly in south—west england, wales and northern ireland and then through the next few hours you can see that meandering eastwards so many areas have a bout of wet weather, as we get to the latter pa rt weather, as we get to the latter part the worst of the rain is starting to move into eastern areas, there will be heavy showers round, hence the amber warning in the south—west of wales so for pembrokeshire, those areas in particular where it has been wet today already. look at the wind here, 40—60mph, but at least that is blowing the rain away from northern ireland, where it has been very wet for much of the day. so wet and windy spell of weather to many, that clears away and we get lots of

showers on the south westly wind. nevertheless keeping piling up what we have already seen, relatively mild because we have the cloud and wind. now that wind is blowing our weather system away into scandinavia, out of the northern isles for the day ahead, but that low pressure driving the weather and low pressure driving the weather and low pressure driving the weather and low pressure means low pressure driving the weather and low pressure means it will be u nsettled low pressure means it will be unsettled and showery, most of the showers will be in the west and southern areas but that wind is strong enough to blow them further east, so they will become more widespread. northeastair east, so they will become more widespread. northeast air yeses of scot, england likely to see fewer showers and temperatures will be just above par for the time of year. as we head into sunday, we have got more showers to come, so it won't be a particularly cold start on suspend, however there will be a number of showers round, rather hit—and—miss, however, pretty unpleasant if you are standing out in the commemorations if it is raining so take something waterproof. this is bbc news i'm rachel. the headlines at 8.

transport ministerjo johnson resigns from the government over brexit, saying the deal being finalised "will be a terrible mista ke". he's also calling for a fresh referendum. at present, the deal is incoherent on its own terms, and that's why it's so important for the public to have a say, so it can confirm that this is really the brexit that it wants. meanwhile, the dup leader arlene foster has said her party couldn't support the government's current proposals on brexit, she accuses theresa may of breaking promises. the prime minister and the french president, emmanuel macron, have jointly laid a wreath at the thiepval memorial in the somme as part of ceremonies marking 100 years since the end of the first world war. thousands of torches light up the tower of london this evening as the nation prepares to pause and remember the fallen.