hello, it's monday, it's 10 o'clock, i'm victoria derbyshire. good morning. in their first broadcast interview, we'll talk to some of the so—called stansted 15, who face jail sentences after they were convicted of cutting through the airport's perimeter fence and locking themselves to a plane that was about to fly people from uk detention centres to africa. most of them are here this morning. they say the legislation used to convict them is over the top and threatens the right to peaceful protest. some homeless people in hull who had been due to stay in a hotel over christmas, have had their booking cancelled — by the hotel. we'll talk to the man who paid for the rooms who says he's "gutted" and fears he now won't be able to find anywhere for them to sleep. and the prime minister, theresa may will tell mps this afternoon that holding another referendum on the eu would "break faith with the british people", and not get us anywhere anyway. here's her business secretary. the last referendum, i think eve ryo ne the last referendum, i think everyone would reflect, was pretty

divisive, in terms of the debate and some of the bitterness it introduced. so i don't think anyone would think that a repeat of that would think that a repeat of that would be any different. a majority of 650 mps can't agree on what kind of brexit to deliver, so is it time in your view to put it back to you? let me know today. hello, welcome to the programme. we're live until 11 this morning. after 10:30, we'll talk about the rapper offset interrupting his estranged wife cardi b's performance at a music festival in la at the weekend — to very publicly ask her to take him back. he came onstage with a bouquet of flowers in hand and a cake reading, "take me back cardi." plenty of people were not amused. we will bring you the story.

and back here, let us know — would you support a second referedum to break the parliamentry deadlock? a majority of 650 mps can't agree on what kind of brexit to deliver — so is it time in your view to put it back to you? let me know. use the hashtag victorialive. send us an email victoria@bbc.co.uk. ed on twitter has been in touch to say: "if people still want leave, they have the means to confirm that. if they have changed their mind, this provides a vehicle for this too. it is more democratic than watching parliament squabble." sheena has tweeted — "another referendum has the potential to cause more division and i for one would lose all faith in our political system." anthony on twitter says: "i made my decision in 2016 and i would like to see the result implemented in 2019, failure to do so would be a betrayal to 17.4 million voters." and neil says: "go vote again. it'll take ten minutes." keep those coming in. let's bring you some of the day plasma news so with rachel. good morning. theresa may is to set out her opposition to

another brexit referendum, telling mps it would break faith with the people and cause irreparable damage to british politics. she will warn that a fresh vote could leave the country no further forward than the last and send the message that democracy doesn't deliver. the business secretary greg clark says of her agreement is voted down in the commons, mps should be given a role in deciding what happens next. i think that we should have a deal. the deal the prime minister has proposed has been broadly backed by british business. i think that needs to go to parliament and what i would say to my fellow mps in parliament, it's one thing to find criticisms of the deal and everyone can do that, but i think we have a responsibility 110w but i think we have a responsibility now to come together, to make sure that we say what we want, rather than what we don't want. the business secretary greg clark. new legislation to protect agency workers and people on zero—hours contracts will be set up by the

government today. it follows a review and consultation with a key focus on the so—called gig economy in the rights of people who are hired very informally, like delivery drivers. the government says this is the biggest package of workplace reforms in 20 years. a former executive at hs2 said he believes the company misled mps about how much it would cost to purchase land along the route of the new high—speed rail line. mr thornton told panorama the figure mps had when they were deciding whether to approve the project was enormously wrong. you can see more on panorama at 7:30pm tonight on bbc one. the co—founder of the popular app hp trivia has been found dead in his apartment in new york at the age of 34. he also co—founded the video platform vine and was found by police after his girlfriend reportedly asked them to check on

him. an hq spokesman confirmed the death with extreme sadness. the app became hugely popular, although its appeal waned this year. the online fashion retailer asos announced a profit warning. despite sales growth of 14% from september to november, it had seen a significant deterioration in profits last month. economic uncertainty, plus weaker consumer confidence, had led to the weakest growth in online clothing sales in recent years. the tour de france winner geraint thomas has been voted bbc sports personality of the year. he became only the third briton to win the prestigious cycle race after sir bradley wiggins and chris froome. in a public vote, f1 champion lewis hamilton finished second and

footballer harry kane came third. that is the latest from the newsroom , now that is the latest from the newsroom, now back to you, victoria. thank you. up to 28 homeless people in hull, who were due to stay in a hotel over christmas, have had their booking cancelled by the hotel without explanation. we'll talk to the guy who booked the rooms at about 1030. carl simpson, founder of the raise the roof homeless project posted on facebook that he was "absolutely gutted and very angry", saying that it's discrimination and they now need a "miracle". the royal hotel in hull has told us they don't want to comment. if you can help with that — do get in touch use the hashtag victorialive, or email victoria@bbc.co.uk. 18 months ago, a group of 15 activists cut through the perimeter fence at stanstead airport and locked themselves around the wing and wheel of a boeing 767 that was scheduled to fly people from uk detention centres to africa. the runway had to be closed and 23 flights were diverted. the group, aged between 28 and 44 years old, were arrested and last week all 15 were found guilty

by a jury of disrupting services and "endangering an aerodrome" under the 1990 aviation and maritime security act. they will be sentenced in february — the offences carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. we're going to speak to 9 of the 15 — to give you insight into what they say their motivation was and why they knowingly broke the law and according to prosecutors placed themselves, the flight crew, airport personnel and police at "serious risk of injury or even death" due to their actions on the airfield. emma hughes who is 8 months pregnant — her baby is due on saturday; ruth potts; jo ram; ali tanmlit; laura clayson; mel evans; ben smoke; and lyndsay burtonshaw and joe mcgann. theyjoin us

they join us now. theyjoin us now. thank you for coming on the programme, we appreciate it. i would like to ask you festival your reaction to the guilty verdict last week? we were shocked and i think it is fair to say we are still reeling. we took action, as he said, to prevent the real harm that we believed and had very real real harm that we believed and had very real reason real harm that we believed and had very real reason to believe, would befall the people who were due to be on that flight that night. we do read testimonies that a group called detain voices who take the testimonies of those held in detention, and these are people who have been denied their voice. their voices have been silenced. they've been telling the home office what the threats are that face them if they are sent to these places. the

home office haven't listened. they are sent to these places. the home office haven't listenedlj they are sent to these places. the home office haven't listened. i will talk to you about your motivation in a minute. iwould talk to you about your motivation in a minute. i would like reaction from all of you. emmett hughes, you are eight months pregnant and your baby is due very soon. how did you respond to the guilty verdict? is due very soon. how did you respond to the guilty verdict7m was a total shock. we are still reeling from it. the trail has gone on for ten weeks and it's been incredibly stressful being at the end ofa incredibly stressful being at the end of a pregnancy and having ? when i give birth injail? the threat of that hanging over me. it's made it a very emotional experience because it's connected me with the stories of people who are supposed to be on that flight, so people who have been separated from their children because they are being deported to places. 0ne because they are being deported to places. one man, who was supposed to be on that flight and then wasn't deported because we stopped the plane taking off, he had been in the uk for13 plane taking off, he had been in the uk for 13 years. he had two children already and his partner was heavily pregnant and about to give birth. and because the plane didn't take off, he was able to be with her for

the birth of their child. he has now been granted leave to remain in the uk and he should never have been on that flight in the first place. it was absolutely wrong and the home office should never have put him on that flight. he's now been able to be with his family. is that because of what you did? because of what we did. 11 people are still in the uk because of what we did, who would have been deported otherwise. this isa have been deported otherwise. this is a window to these deportation flights who go once a month and are continually taking people to places where they are not safe. where they face destitution or harm and separating families. a quick word from the rest of you in terms of reaction to the verdict? genuinely shocked. totally shocked. we should never have been charged with this charge in the first place and we weren't expecting guilty. shocked, but also in the waiting room after

hearing the sentencing, i spoke to two women from crossroads centre, a place where lots of groups meet, including migrant groups. one of the women who came and said how shocked she was, she told me on the train on the way there that she got her appeal rejected for the eighth time eight years in a row. our situation is terrible, but the situation that so is terrible, but the situation that so many people who are faced with, going through the home office systems, go through this process year—on—year and it's really normal and that is so much worse than what we have gone through. we should never have been charged with this charge. it is totally disproportionate from what we did, which was a peaceful protest. we laid on our backs on the tarmac for ten hours. the police were very relaxed with us. it's been a total turnaround that this is what they brought against us. i'm interested ? where you shocked by the guilty verdict? very shocked.

each one of your shocked yet he knew what you were doing was breaking the law, that's what i don't understand? there are two things there. in terms of this charge of endangerment, the idea that anything that we did, as mel said, we were lying on our back on the tarmac for ten hours. there was nothing that we did that night that put anyone or anything in danger. you cut through the fence of that airport, you entered a restricted area, used industrial bolt cutters, stealth folding poles, lockbox devices, tide yourself around the nose of the plane. lockbox devices, tide yourself around the nose of the planem lockbox devices, tide yourself around the nose of the plane. it was very peaceful. it was a peaceful blockade. and it was treated as a peaceful protest. the thing is, in this country, there are very rare occasions in which you have a legal right to do something that would ordinarily be considered to be breaking the law if you're acting to prevent harm. that's what we were

doing. we had real concerns that the people on that plane didn'tjust face harm when they were sent to the places they were being sent to, but we also know that the guards had been documented as being very abusive on these planes. they put people on planes with two security guards per detainees. you know the judge said intention was irrelevant in your case. thejury judge said intention was irrelevant in your case. the jury heard the evidence, they decided you were guilty of these criminal offences and a couple of you have mentioned this charge they'd never have been brought. what was wrong with the charge, in your view, that was brought against you all? this charge first came into place in order to criminalise violent acts at airports. we were completely peaceful as an actor. this change in the use of the legislation is unprecedented. our questions around on what basis was this charge use when it's never previously used

against peaceful acts, those questions haven't been answered. we've been asking the attorney general who signed off this charge, we've been asking through the courts, asking through our mps, amnesty international have asked the attorney general and it hasn't been answered, on what basis is the charge used against us? why do you say the charges i'm justified? it's basically an anti—terror law and was brought in after the lockerbie bombing. it was about violent acts. the only time this has been used before it is when a man when on a rampage with a helicopter on an airfield. that is the exact opposite of what we did. i've read the legislation. you state terrorism —related, the word terrorism doesn't appear anywhere. it does in the beginning of the legislation. and when it was introduced to parliament, the transport secretary at the time is very clear this was a piece of legislation that is

designed to prevent terror in the airand at sea. designed to prevent terror in the air and at sea. i've got it here. i won't read it all out, it doesn't mention terrorism anywhere. cbs said the charge used in this case is from the charge used in this case is from the aviation and maritime act and for those who interrupt services at an aerodrome regardless of their motivation was that this is not a terrorism charge, it's a law to protect the operation of civil aviation. a key part of the wording of the charges around endangerment. we endanger nothing and no one. it was an entirely peaceful protest. the only people in danger that night where the people who were supposed to be deported on that plane, people who are going to be in heavy shackles, in heavy restraints, put on these planes forcibly and sent to places where there were at extreme risk of persecution. they were the people in danger. what we did was absolutely not endangerment. the jury absolutely not endangerment. the jury who heard all the evidence

didn't buy that. we don't know why the jury didn't. we do know that the prosecution were trying to conflate health and safety with endangerment, which was totally inappropriate. let me reduce the messages from people around the country. graham says it's irresponsible to tamper with an aircraft, just touching a win can get it checked over, other ways to get it checked over, other ways to get your views across. another says, why are you giving the stansted protest is the time of day? as far asi protest is the time of day? as far as i understand the case, they break the law deserve everything they get. and another says, they deserve their maximum punishment possible because it's ridiculous, dangerous and also stupid. i want to read the statement we have from the home office. one of you said a comment about the fact that people on the plane should never have been there. the home office say, we only return those with no legal right to remain in the uk, including foreign national offenders and failed asylum seekers. we expect people to leave the

country voluntarily but where they do not, the home office will seek to enforce their departure. i think there are a whole range of ways in which the system isn't working. we know, for example, that the home office has a policy, had a policy at the time and is still using it, of the port first and appeal later. what that means is people with ongoing asylum claims are deported with the idea they might be able to pursue their claim from the country they are being sent to. i don't think that's right. at the time the decisions are taken ? the time the decisions are taken ? the supreme court found that to be a legal five months after we took action. at the time the decisions we re action. at the time the decisions were taken around those immigration cases, those cases had been heard by a court, due process had been followed. whether you agree with the decisions or not. there are cases where there were victims of trafficking, case will have been overturned and the home office hadn't changed the decision. the case i mentioned, the man separated

from his family, he now has the right to remain in the uk. he hadn't yet had a chance to have that process seen all the way through. you say your actions were absolutely justified? mackie now has the right to remain in the uk. the home office we re wrong to remain in the uk. the home office were wrong to put him on the flight. criminal damage and trespass, says one viewer, deserved punishment. this is not peaceful protest. these people should be locked up and made to pay for damage caused and any compensation paid out by airlines to passengers. an example needs to be made to stop any future repeats. can i get some facts straight? we were ina remote i get some facts straight? we were in a remote part of the airport. i get some facts straight? we were in a remote part of the airportfi doesn't really matter. we won't rerun the trial. we didn't touch the plane so i think one of your view commented about that, we didn't touch the plane either. to respond touch the plane either. to respond to that, we absolutely apologise for any inconvenience caused to passengers that night. what we were there were to do was to stop that

one particular plane. we didn't touch the plane, we'rejust one particular plane. we didn't touch the plane, we're just setting up touch the plane, we're just setting upa touch the plane, we're just setting up a blockade behind it. what we we re up a blockade behind it. what we were doing was very discreet. it was just targeted on that one plane. we we nt just targeted on that one plane. we went tried for criminal damage and aggravated trespass, we might been but we went tried for that. we were tried for the obscure law and that is what is wrong here. can i ask you, it's unlikely that you will get life sentences for this. can i ask you how you view the prospect of potentially a custodial sentence? it's really scary, of course. we don't know what we are going to face. it's a difficult time. your babyis face. it's a difficult time. your baby is due at the weekend. yes, correct. if you end up with a jail sentence, the fact you have a new baby may be mitigating on who knows, but if you end up with a jail sentence, would you be expected to be separated from your baby? pat the uk is one of the few countries that

separates mothers and children. uk is one of the few countries that separates mothers and childrenlj separates mothers and children.” would be going to jail and then would be going to jail and then would have to apply to get a place ina would have to apply to get a place in a mother and would have to apply to get a place in a motherand baby would have to apply to get a place in a mother and baby unit and whilst i was applying to get her to have a place, i would i was applying to get her to have a place, iwould be i was applying to get her to have a place, i would be separated from my child. do you regret what you did? it happens to women all the time. i can't regret the action we did because there are 11 people in the uk who would not be here otherwise, people who we know are victims of trafficking, people who should not have been on that flight. but it's been extremely difficult, extremely ha rd been extremely difficult, extremely hard and has had huge consequences for all of us. anyone regret it? none of you question what you do the same again? like emma said, we've spoken about laws and heard about different legislation, all the official decisions have been flying around that this is the year, the centenary of the suffragettes getting the right to vote for some women. just like they were very unpopular for their tactics back then, what we have done now is unpopular with some people but it means some people who are victims of trafficking, these are women who

have been sold into sex slavery and domestic slavery, these are real people and they are still a bit safer because of what we did. these are people who would have been trafficked again, incredibly vulnerable. one is so disabled, she cannot use the toilet unaided. she is still here and still safe because of us and i can't regret that. we don't regret what we did. i don't think we would do it again because it has had such huge consequences for us but there are a myriad of ways that people are basically resisting and struggling against the home office's very brutal deportation system. thank you all of you for coming on the programme. we will follow your case and sentencing is due in february. thank you very much for coming in, we appreciate your time. still to come: the hotel in hull that's cancelled christmas for the homeless. we speak to the charity worker who booked and paid for hotel rooms for around 28 homeless people over christmas — only to have them cancelled without explanation. so, now they have nowhere to go. can you help? are you in the

humberside area? send us an e—mail or tweet us. we will be live in hull in the next ten minutes or so. it's just over 100 days to go until the uk is due to leave the european union, and nothing is particularly clear about how we're leaving. so, what are the options? the prime minister's deal, which has taken two years of negotiation to put together but lacks support in parliament, a no—deal brexit, in which we fall back on ordinary trading standards with no special arrangements between the eu and the uk, abandoning the idea of brexiting altogether or perhaps... ..another referendum. those who want to bring it about call it a peoples vote, those who oppose it say it'd just be a re—run of the 2016 referendum. so, should brexit conundrum to go back to you, the great british public? let's talk to two politicians on opposite sides of the argument. kate hoey is a labour mp who campaigned to leave the eu, dr philip lee is a conservative mp who quit the government in order to back a so—called people's vote.

good morning. thank you forjoining us. thank you for your patience, i appreciate that. dr philip lee, this is being mooted now as a way of breaking the parliamentary deadlock. would there be a majority in parliament for a second referendum? if the deal is being voted down and we are confronted by the reality of no deal, yes. do you agree with that, kate hoey? i don't. in my party there are a lot of mps who voted remain but wouldn't vote for a second referendum. even if there was nothing left? even with nothing left, because they realise that wouldn't go down well in their own constituencies and across the country, where people feel ? if we have a second referendum, you want to implement the first is that we haven't done that. leave meant leaving all the institutions of the eu, being an independent country and we haven't done that yet. these negotiations the prime minister have done have been very long—winded and

ended up with something that is just not started from the right place. i believe the prime minister, because she didn't really believe in brexit, made it, wanted to stay as close as possible and i think that is where we have got to now. we are half in and half hour and that is not acceptable. dr philip lee, shaking your head in disagreement?” acceptable. dr philip lee, shaking your head in disagreement? i find the whole idea that the public were cognisant of all the likely implications of leaving the european union in 2016 is patented nonsense. one example, i placed an amendment toa one example, i placed an amendment to a trade bill injuly one example, i placed an amendment to a trade bill in july about access to a trade bill in july about access to medicines. as it currently stands, if we leave are no deal, we leave the european medicines agency, the latest cancer drugs will be delayed coming into the country. why? when pharmaceutical companies development, they put the first market as the fda in america, the second in europe, the third is japan, the fourth market is china and the fifth there the rest of the world. who will stop them coming

into the uk? where they won't be ratified as drugs that can be administered until they pass through the process and that will be determined by the pharmaceutical company, not us. the pharmaceutical company, not us. the pharmaceutical company won't want any drugs coming into the uk question that this is pa rt into the uk question that this is part of this ridiculous idea that somehow we cannot cope. do you trust a doctor or a politician? i'm not sure these days anyone trusts anyone in the establishment.” sure these days anyone trusts anyone in the establishment. i think this is the problem. the undermining of expert advice in this area is shocking. fundamentally, my point about this, just one example, there are a myriad of others. my point is this deal, as you rightly described, has not reached the bar of what was promised in 2016. in which case, how on earth can i vote for something and proceed with it when i don't think we have the informed consent of the public? i think that's a bit patronising on the public. the point about referendum, everyone says how long this is taken and the

uncertainty for business. i think it took six weeks to get legislation through when everyone wanted the referendum and it went through with a huge majority. however long it will take to get the legal basis, then you have the electoral commission trying to work out what question you would have that would be another huge row. in the meantime, business has no certainty. i think we will get more and more to a feeling that it's better to be out and getand a feeling that it's better to be out and get and deal with it, manage it. cope with the disruption. can you just be clear with our audience, dr philip lee, a second referendum would need primary legislation which realistically only the government can bring forward? i guess. if it's not adopted as government policy on theresa may is very clearly at this point against it, there's no way a second referendum can happen? the pressure can build. unless the government adopts it. if for example the opposition goes through the process and ends up voting for a

peoples vote, i don't like the name, but that is what it is being called by most. who voted last time? i'm amazed by that. it will be hard for the government to ignore that. fundamentally, if you're asking me, do we have no deal scenario, with all the consequences of that, or whether we have a vote of confidence in the government? some colleagues are going to get pushed right to the on this. you know this, in 2016 there was no 585 page withdrawal agreement. there was no question of leaving without a deal, because most people who agreed with you said there would be a trade deal. we have got this agreement in front of us now. we can see what it says, see what the 26 political declaration on the future also says. what would be wrong on voting on whether people wa nt wrong on voting on whether people want that or not? if parliament doesn't want to, is unlikely that people will want it. in terms of the

principal. how do you know that? the principle to me is it wasn't on the ballot paper, leave with a deal. the withdrawal agreement is not even a deal, not a trade agreement. that comes later. of course, what we need now. we need more information. philip things people didn't understand. i didn't understand, not just people. everybody will read the 585 pages, this huge document. it's ridiculous to say that. people understood what it meant. i genuinely find it quite dreadful that now the people who are ? not just a day saying we have to do it again but they are saying some people have died, so now we might get a different vote because all these old people who voted to leave won't be there anymore. the reality is?do won't be there anymore. the reality is ? do you know any believers who wa nt is ? do you know any believers who want a second referendum?” is ? do you know any believers who want a second referendum? i know a numberof want a second referendum? i know a number of people who have switched

over to number of people who have switched overto remain, number of people who have switched over to remain, absolutely. but 585 pages of this withdrawal agreement is not a trade deal. exactly. by the idea that somehow we have this magical trade deal that people, and also people thought it would be the easiest deal to making history, we have not got it. we know that. £39 billion for nothing ? british people are more aware and better informed now. the prime minister looks stubborn and close. ps, i'm a conservative party member. another said, i don't respect the prime minister but i respect those who voted and i believe in democracy. i voted and i believe in democracy. i voted remain that understand why many voted leave to stop the government should have dealt with it sooner, it's a complete and utter shambles. another says, having another referendum would make a com plete another referendum would make a complete joke of the whole voting process. leave complete joke of the whole voting process . leave was complete joke of the whole voting process. leave was result. another says, no second people's vote, out means out, no deal. dr philip lee, howard scottish conservatives view a second referendum ? howard scottish conservatives view a second referendum?” howard scottish conservatives view a second referendum? i think they are

ina second referendum? i think they are in a difficult place, between a rock and hard place. they wouldn't want to? the snp said we would like a second independence referendum? the current deal on the table treats northern ireland differently. but if they agreed to support a second referendum, they are encouraging another referendum on independence in scotland. between a rock and hard place and i have sympathy with that but sad today that scotland voted heavily for remain. we had lots of referendums in the country in the last ten years or so. a welsh referendum, which went through by 0.3 0.4%. any of the referendums we have had on the way our voting system works, the welsh or scottish referendum, no one has come back and sent their time saying, hang on, we don't like that result, we need another referendum. that's what people are dumb from day one. would it be anti—democratic?” people are dumb from day one. would it be anti-democratic? i think it would be dangerous for democracy. many voted for the first time, having been told your vote really

matters. david cameron says, your vote matters, it's a lifetime decision, it won't be then dr philip lee gets his way. one final word on when the meaningful vote should be? it should be before christmas, that's the right thing. we are in deadlock at parliament, we need more democracy. the people versus parliament, that is a situation. our view is other people and they are getting in touch to tell us their views. thank you, appreciate your time and patience. rapper cardi b has urged people not to criticise her estranged husband, offset, after he crashed her show in los angeles in an attempt to get her back. she was performing at the rolling loud festival in la over the weekend when her former partner came on stage with a sign made of roses saying "take me back cardi". earlier this month cardi b had announced the pair — who have a child together — had separated amid rumours he cheated on her. joining me now is newsbeats reporter sinead garvan. hello, how are you. for those who

wa nt to hello, how are you. for those who want to learn more about cardiff b, fill us in. she is one of the world's the guest rappers. she is quite well—known in states, doing reality tv but in the last year, globally, big phenomenon. she got together with offset, the same time as she was getting quite famous. everyone loves a power couple, the hip—hop dream and all the rest of it, they got engaged very publicly, when they were both on stage, he proposed to her, quite a big gesture. they got married secretly, no one knew, just in their bedroom, they have a little girl now as well. yes, she announced they had split up a couple of weeks ago, lots of rumours about what went on, obviously, we don't know, only the people involved know exactly what

happened, he then of course went on stage, this massive, grand gesture, been getting quite a lot of abuse we re been getting quite a lot of abuse were doing that and this is why she has come out and said, on social media, please stop attacking him, it's not fair. do we have a clip of this? i hope so. i see a lot of people bashing me because they feel lam defending people bashing me because they feel i am defending my baby's father, thinking i am getting back together with him. i'm not saying i am getting back together with him, i don't like that bashing online thing. earlier you so happy davidson was thinking about he doesn't want to be on this earth because people are coming to hate every single day. i don't want my baby's father to have that feeling because millions of people be bashing him every day. that's a nasty feeling and i would not want that. god could give me and bring me the most perfect, glamorous, fabulous man, that perfect, glamorous, fabulous, perfect, glamorous, fabulous,

perfect man is not going to love my child the same way her father loves my child. i don't like that bleep because i know how painful it is when you have millions of people bashing you every single day. i don't like that. it doesn't make me feel any better. so stop bashing him, basically. they have a tied together and that's the most important thing, she doesn't want a child growing up with everyone hating on her dad. the davidson has had a tough time, is there a parallel? yes, she mentions him in video she put on social media. he has been getting a hard time, he was with ariana grande, they were engaged, split up, he is quite famous in the states as a comedian, he is on saturday night live, this big television show there, he put out a very worrying statement on saturday saying he did not want to be on the earth any more, that was troubling, he appeared on saturday night live, the police, i believe,

checked in on him as well. he's been getting a lot of abuse because he went out with ariana grande and they broke up and it's just, went out with ariana grande and they broke up and it'sjust, he's went out with ariana grande and they broke up and it's just, he's spoken about borderline personality disorder, bipolar, he's very, very sensitive and he's being bullied online. simply for going out with someone they all idolise. acute for coming on the programme. —— thank you. asylum seekers who are waiting for their application to be considered are still being housed in ‘degrading' accommodation, with many living in badly maintained, damp and vermin infested properties. that's according to a new report by the home affairs committee published today which found there's been little improvement in conditions almost two years since their last report on the issue. we can now speak stuart mcdonald, snp mp and member of the home affairs committee, sara nathan, co—founder of the charity refugees at home and ibrahim, who is seeking asylum in the uk and says he is living in cramped, dirty, and poorly maining housing

in the north east of england. thank you all for coming on the programme. ebrahim, iwonder thank you all for coming on the programme. ebrahim, i wonder if you could tell people about the problems you have with your place. thank you, i would like to say i am an asylum seeker and i came to the uk for safety a nd seeker and i came to the uk for safety and for a better life after i ran away from the problem back home. so as asylum seekers we don't get to choose for we live and state, we are accommodated by the home office. at the moment, the police i am staying —— the place i am staying, you have so many people living in the same house, people get to share a room. this is making the house, my house, and people like me, houses, overcrowded. and this overcrowding

is causing trouble in the house and causing arguments. we have to queue for the bathroom, queue for cooking, because this house we are staying m, because this house we are staying in, they are designed for a family, but people are having to transfer them into a business. he, personally, my problem at the moment, i am a muslim and i pray five times a day and when i wake up early morning to pray, i wake up about 5am in the morning and my roommate is sleeping. when i am praying i disturbed him and you know, i don't like to disturb someone but i have to do what i had to do. this causes arguments between us, he tells me he has his rights andi us, he tells me he has his rights and i have mine, i don't have any choice but to do what i have to do. you probably know there is a shortage of housing in this country, the fact that you are sharing a room, some people would say it's

better to be sharing than not have a room adult. there is only a limited you can sure a room. if you come to this country like me, i have been in this country like me, i have been in this situation for the last five yea rs. this situation for the last five years. someone asks me to share a room for one, two, three months until they find me a better place i would not mind but at the moment, this is my life and i have to live my life. if i want to bring a girlfriend or rented to have a private life, i can't even bring a girlfriend or boyfriend to my room, you know? i understand. let me bring in sarah. and stewart. what abraham is describing, stewart, do you think it's unacceptable? i do and i think many local authorities would regarded as unacceptable. you have

to remember asylum seekers are very often vulnerable people, that is of torture, ptsd, they can have different faith backgrounds and beliefs, very often go sharing is not appropriate and i think a lot of local authorities would not allow that if they have the power to say so but unfortunately what's happening is the home office is setting standards and saying that practice is acceptable. sharing with someone you have never met, you have no say, from the accommodation we saw some pictures, it's revolting. living in a house in a shared room, eight able to a lavatory and the lavatory lea ks onto eight able to a lavatory and the lavatory leaks onto the cooker. the standard of accommodation from what we hear from standard of accommodation from what we hearfrom our guests, they tell us it's vile. you see from the report, only 24% of that accommodation is acceptable. there are only nine inspectors in the whole country, 46% as unacceptable. what are we doing, leading people who have led to claim sanctuary be

treated like this? they are sent arbitrarily to different places, families members, some of them may be sent for example to newport, others elsewhere. the accommodation, nobody responds you are an asylum seeker, you are scared, you want status but you don't want to make a fuss,if status but you don't want to make a fuss, if no one comes to fix everything. you pretty much of the same report a couple of years ago and nothing has improved, what do you think about that? we have an opportunity, the current contracts have come to an end of the contract will be signed in the new year. we are at the stage now, local authorities who have stepped up to a plate, a quarter to a third of them in the uk, some of them are threatening to walk away from this accommodation unless there is change is made and i think finally, the home office has grasped this is not a bluff and has made some noises in interested —— in that

is interested in making changes. doesn't happen the dispersal system could be injeopardy, changes made to be made, so local authorities have sick of the can say in how these changes are made and work properly. in the longer term, someone like abraham wants to work, not be a burden on society, if he could contribute and pay rent, he is allowed to work, he is a burden from working, he cannot do what he wants to do to help himself, taxpayers money is being spent on accommodation that is pretty bad, some of it doesn't have to be. you've been waiting for five years to have your asylum application considered or has it even considered, rejected, youth appeal, what's the situation if you don't mind me asking. in my situation might asylum claim was refused and then i put in a fresh claim, but

some of my friends they asked for asylu m some of my friends they asked for asylum and some others, we wait for 6-7 asylum and some others, we wait for 6—7 years before consideration. i know people have put in an asylum claim and they do not get an answer per 6—7 years. claim and they do not get an answer per 6-7 years. thank you all for coming on the programme. a home office spokesperson said: "the uk has a long history of granting asylum to those who need our protection and we are committed to providing safe and secure accommodation while applications are considered. "we consider all requests from those who may have particular vulnerabilities, care needs or health problems that require specialist accommodation. "we also monitor contractors and their accommodation closely and take action — including financial penalties — where issues are not addressed within certain timescales. "we continue to work closely with local authorities on asylum dispersal and have committed to comprehensive engagement with the local government association and local authority chief executives to review the process." ? thank you also for your many m essa g es thank you also for your many messages about drake said. all says how can a vote, now we know facts from fantasy, be any other than

democratic and logical. —— about brexit. this about whether they should be another referendum. quite incredible that theresa may thinks another referendum would break the faith with british people, she wants to force through her deal on the back of a thread of no deal, how democratic is that? the conservatives have zero credibility, shows how out of touch the prime minister is, let the people decide. mike says i voted remain but am now a firm leaver, i don't want another boat and in no way felt misled by the leave lobby. the vote was the deal we have, suck it up and get on with it. so many more, i will try and read some more before 11am. we all get them — nuisance calls. whether you find them mildly annoying or seriously disruptive, calls hawking ppi or acident insurance are almost universally unwelcome. until today, only businesses themselves were liable to pay fines of up to £500,000. and the uk data protection watchdog, the information commissioner's

office, says it's only been able to recover 54% of the £17.8m in fines issued for nuisance calls since 2010. well, from today the company directors of the firms behind the calls will be held personally responsible for any law breaks — and they themselves will have to pay fines of up to half a million pounds. let's speak now to margot james — the government minister responsible for the new law, and martin bostock — a businessman from coventry who says he was receiving 20 calls a day... hello, both of you and thank you for coming on the programme. you said earlier that you were one step closer to ending nuisance calls, as this mean they are going to be entered from today? it's a big step today, i think it will really focus

minds, from now on directors will be personally liable for the fines of up personally liable for the fines of up to £500,000. what was that mean in practical terms? up to £500,000. what was that mean in practicalterms? it means up to £500,000. what was that mean in practical terms? it means the information commissioner will be able to recover a lot more of the fines she levies, what happens is persistent offenders that the companies into liquidation to avoid the company paying the fine. that will no longer have any point because they themselves as individuals will be liable. i think this will have a significant effect. it's a big problem, one measure won't end the entire problem but this is on the back of many other measures we have taken to date. let's see what martin thinks. argue for talking to us, what do you think of this change, will it make a difference? it will make a difference? it will make a difference but it will be a marginal difference. the people in the dark side are already well aware of what's coming and they are taking the necessary measures. it relies on

agencies that, for instance, don't do that which people perhaps assume that they do. the flight of many of the call centre type operations to both spoofing over internet calling, being able to fabricate numbers and so on mean the problem is constantly moving ahead of the regulators. i would have preferred to see and i lobbied for, a process which follows the money, for the directors of those who commission and benefit from the service, not the taxi driver, not the company or the call centre, they are just an agency, people like those, for instance i received an unsolicited call from everest double glazing a couple of weeks ago, i am not afraid to name them, a man came round to my house. they got my number, somebody made the call, i would like to see the directors of everest per sued, not

hapless call centre in the middle who were assured it was a legitimate number. under your law, margaret james, could the director of a company like that be per sued? indeed, it's the company commissioning the unsolicited and illegal calls that is liable and it will be the directors of the company who will face fines, personal fines of up to half £1 million. the other thing we've done, done a lot, actually, we've outlawed the claims management companies from making unsolicited calls on less they have prior consent. and i don't know whether you've noticed, victoria, on commercial radio a lot of claims management companies are advertising direct to the consumer at saying if you have a case, text this number and that indicates to me they are seeking people's consent which is what we want. ok. martin, how bad it didn't get for you when you were

trying to run your business? the height, the landline and personal mobile numbers, i hit 20, regularly 12 calls, averaging every day on my landline, 2—3 on my business mobile which i could not afford not to pick up. consequently my work was broken up, couldn't concentrate on anything, meetings were interrupted and so on. it was absolute trivia, dross. the government says new legislation means there's no hiding place from people who make money from cold calls. do you accept that? i don't, i per sued companies who directors work that dishes, companies house dust. check whether they exist, they will get a head one way or another and it needs to proceed the money, always all the money. is that not what the legislation dolls, am i missing

something? this is new, i've only just heard they will proceed that, the briefings i've had and the news releases i read this morning before i set out all said it was the call centres... no it's the directors. the companies that commission the call centres on the directors of those companies who will be liable. the other thing is important and i would urge anyone who gets these wretched calls to complain to the information commissioner. we have increased the budget this year by almost £20 million, they've hired 200 extra staff and they have clout, especially now they can issue fines against individuals as well as companies. how do you complain to the information commissioner? go online, or telephone, they have a helpline for people who are not routinely online and they have a great website with advice about these calls, people can complain. the latest figures i have according to offer comp, 3—.9 billion nuisance

calls received an uk landlines every year. going down a bit. it's a turbulent number, by the way. absolutely no excuse for it, it has gone down a 35% over the last 12 months. and i think, because we are gradually tightening the noose around the offending companies. complaints to come all so coming down, i don't know whether that's good or bad, last year 32,000 complaints made to off, about silent or abandoned calls. martin thanks so much for coming on the programme, and timbuktu, government minister, cani and timbuktu, government minister, can i ask you whether a second vote should be put to the people?” can i ask you whether a second vote should be put to the people? i think we have to have a vote on the prime minister's deal. let's say that voted down, those are the indications. the indication is we

will vote in the new year, there is a powerful case to be made for the prime minister's deal if you don't feel it's appropriate to go straight back to the public on another referendum, neither do you feel it's a risk worth taking to leave the european union without a deal and i think once minds are focused on that, this is the deal, it's been approved by the eu, negotiated hard by the prime minister and her advisers and the brexit circuitry andi advisers and the brexit circuitry and i think it's time parliament gripped itand... and i think it's time parliament gripped it and... there's not been a budget, there will be a vote and people will have a chance to vote on that deal. of course she will come at you genuinely suggesting that by january whatever, the 14th whatever mrs may brings to the house of commons, it will get past the cos people will focus their minds?” think there is a chance because the options are, neither are desirable, either we leave the european union

was no deal, with all the huge risks to the economy that will bring, certainties, not just to the economy that will bring, certainties, notjust risk of economic damage, or i'm afraid it would rob a plea have to go back to a referendum which is not of the prime minister wants because she wa nts to prime minister wants because she wants to deliver on the referendum we had to you and half years ago.” think it will concentrate minds. we will see. thanks so much for coming on the programme. temper too, government minister responsible for the new law regarding company directors being liable for nuisance calls. up to 28 homeless people in hull — who were due to stay in a hotel over christmas — now have nowhere to sleep after the hotel suddenly cancelled the booking. the guy who booked the rooms and founder of the raise the roof homeless project posted on facebook that he was "absolutely gutted and very angry", saying that it's discrimination and they now need a "miracle". the royal hotel in hull has told us they don't want to comment. well, joining us now is mark who was homeless last year and beenfitted from staying in a hotel for a couple of nights over the christmas period

and the man behind the project, carl simpson. good morning, both of you and thank you somewhat for talking to us. karl, do you have any explanation as to why this happened? we're still not received any explanation, we told them friendly looked, what exactly the booking was for. sorry, i missed that last that come have they cancelled the booking? they haven't given us any reason for cancelling, we've asked for a reason, they said they haven't got one. why do you think it is? it's got to be discrimination, the rooms are still for sale and nobody else's rooms have been cancelled. do you mean discrimination because they are homeless people? exactly, yes, the rooms were paid for in full, we told them there were homeless people coming, they were happy to take the

booking and they have changed their mind and cancelled. how would they have suddenly discovered the people staying over christmas were homeless people? they knew upfront, we made the booking and told them upfront we we re the booking and told them upfront we were a homeless project and we were making a booking for homeless people, they were fine with that and gave us a discount. and all of a sudden they have changed their mind after we paid. mark, you benefited from this last year, what did it mean to you? it meant quite a lot to me, it was a big help from carl and bad. as well, there is a lot of discrimination going on in hull over homeless people, a lot of people smoking advice and you know what i mean, not everybody is like that. —— smoking spice. that is what people are being discriminated for. it's interesting, they knew from day one

it was a group of homeless people, when they took the booking and the money. it was like that last year, they did it last year, everything we nt they did it last year, everything went 0k. they did it last year, everything went ok. but this year, i don't know what's going on with them, i'm gutted, there has been a bit of press about the spice and that and they must think everyone is smoking at. this message from steve on twitter, not sympathetic, the royal hotel is forced or, if i was paying to stay there over christmas do i wa nt to stay there over christmas do i want the public areas invaded i people with drug and alcohol problems, no? iwould cancel people with drug and alcohol problems, no? i would cancel my booking. what you say? not everybody is the same, just because we are homeless, it doesn't mean we are going to be drinking when other people out there. tracy, who is sympathetic, says to steve, let's hope you never find yourself homeless and i would recommend you

ask... lets you neverfind homeless and i would recommend you ask... lets you never find yourself homeless and i would recommend you ask santa for a dash empathy, you have no idea why people are homeless, it's not always drugs and drink. carl, what would you say? we have people who become homeless because they had a family break—up, they have to leave the family home. they have become homeless, we've had ex—servicemen on the streets after serving for the there's lots of reasons. not just the serving for the there's lots of reasons. notjust the ones that seem to be labelled with. i think a fundraising page has raised in the last hour alone £1000 for the people you are trying to book rooms for. in total it is a bit higher than that, nearly £6,000. what you need is accommodation. that is america bit, you need someone to come forward and say stay at our hotel. that's what we are waiting for. i wasn't aware we are waiting for. i wasn't aware we had reached that, i haven't had a

chance to check, my phone has been crazy. that's absolutely amazing. we just need the rooms now. ok, humberside hotel owners, there must be dozens of them, somebody needs to get in touch. thank you terry much carl, we will keep following this story, i am sure something will happen. mark, thanks for your story, i am sure something will happen. mark, thanks foryourtime, thanks for coming on, we appreciated. thank you. thank you for your comments about, let me find them, some of the stansted 15, for your comments about, let me find them, some of the stansted15, we talked to nine open this morning, they were found guilty last week of breaking and entering stansted airport and locking the wheel of a plane to stop people being taken from uk detention centres to parts of africa. i'm an aircraft pilot says steph, this was very, very dangerous, i think these people should be punished, this is illegal,

they've been found guilty and they could have endangered other people, they should be locked up and stopped from doing this again, laws broken. bernadette says i want to express my support and that the oration of these principled and caring people, who want justice for others, these principled and caring people, who wantjustice for others, teddy bear was non—for them. thanks for your company, bbc newsroom is next, we are back tomorrow morning at 10am. have a good day. good morning. some lovely sunshine out there at the moment, we see the cloud increasing gradually from the west today. clear skies from the satellite imagery, the cloud towards the west, area of pressure moving in across the uk, the skies becoming a little bit grey across northern ireland, western areas of england, wales and scotland. patchy rain moving its way in. the further east you are, it will stay mostly sunny

and dry right throughout the day. maximum temperature is about 7—8d further west. the rain continuing to move eastwards, a strengthening wind with scales around western areas, particularly in northern ireland, heavy rain moving its way in through the night. further eased clear spells, temperatures 3—4d, further west will stay mild into tuesday. during tuesday, windy day for all of us, the rain moving its way eastwards. you're watching bbc newsroom live, it's11am and these are the main stories this morning:

theresa may will tell mps that holding another brexit referendum will "break faith with the british people". work and pensions secretary amber rudd says parliament should consider all options. we need to find out where the majority of mps will vote, nothing should be off the table. we should consider all options. the amount of money in student loans expected not to be repaid will now be recorded as public debt — adding 12 billion pounds to the uk's defecit online fashion retailer asos has issued a profit warning after what it says was "unprecedented" discounting and "the weakest growth in online clothing sales in recent years".