in live music. drums play. set for the shortcut of this audio tech special. plenty more in the full—length version which is available now on iplayer. don't forget that throughout the week you can find us on facebook, youtube, instagram and twitter at @bbcclick. thanks for watching, thanks for listening, and we will see you soon.

welcome to newswatch with me, samira ahmed. a public backlash after the bbc upholds a complaint against breakfast presenter naga munchetty for comments about racism. who was wrong? in a week of anger and arguments at westminster, a row has been developing too here at the bbc. breakfast presenter naga munchetty has been found by the corporation's executive complaints unit to have breached bbc guidelines in comments she made on air injuly. they were part of a conversation initiated by co—presenter dan walker after president trump had told four democratic congresswomen to go back to the places from which they came.

i tell you... it is, it is the president. that was the most telling quote for me last night. i can't remember who said, but she said she had been told to go home times, to go back to where she came from. she is being told by the man sitting in the oval office. every time i have been told, as he woman of colour, to go back to where i came from, that was embedded in racism. now, i'm not accusing anyone of anything here, but you know what certain phrases mean. you still hear that quite regularly? not regularly, but i've been told every so often. you are sitting here not giving an opinion, but how do you feel as someone who has been told that before... furious, absolutely furious. i can imagine that lots of people in this country will be feeling absolutely furious that a man in that position feels it is ok to skirt the lines with using language like that. do you feel that his use of that, because that is the point i was trying to make, then legitimises other people to use that?

and as our guest was saying there, it feels like a thought—out strategy to strengthen his position. and it's not enough to do it just to get attention. he is in a responsible position. look, i am not here to give my opinion. although bbc breakfast posted and promoted that on its twitter feed, one person pursued that to the final arbiter of complaints in—house at the bbc. they ruled that: but the emergence of that decision on wednesday unleashed an angry response from politicians, otherjournalists inside and outside the bbc, and also from

members of the audience.

well, to discuss this, i am joined by david jordan, the bbc‘s director of editorial policy and standards. thank you for coming on newswatch. is it now ok for news presenters to talk about personal opinions in discussing these stories? it shouldn't be ok to talk about personal opinions, but it should be ok to talk about personal experience. i want to make it clear that what naga munchetty did when she responded to the questions she was asked and suggested that the statement that had been made had been a racist statement, and her response as a person who has had that kind of horrible things said to her in her lifetime, was completely 0k, and the executive complaints unit which came to this finding had no objection to either of those statements. so those people who have interpreted this finding as somehow ruling out either of those two things

are wrong, and those people who have interpreted the statement suggesting the bbc is impartial on racism are also wrong. thatjust isn't the case. some viewers, as you heard in those e—mails, said, "why is naga munchetty being singled out for censure when many older white male presenters aren't?" it's not a good look for the bbc. i don't think we singled anybody out but i am afraid that the executive complaints unit deals with the complaints it gets. some people say why isn't dan walker being singled out or mentioned in the same way as naga munchetty? dan walker's role. the complainant didn't mention dan walker at all? there were quite a lot of complaints at the time it was made. a lot of people disagreed with your audience members about what she said at the time. only one of those, as you correctly said, made its way to the executive complaints unit. then they're obliged to deal with a complaint they have and not complaints they might like to have or other complaints that might be available. that's what they did

in this instance. one might wonder how they came to the decision, because could they not look at the context? even if the complaint was just about naga munchetty, you're sayinig the complainant didn't mention dan walker at all, can they not look at the fact he initiated the conversation? there is a mention of dan walker in the finding that they have put together in the letter to the complainant. and it does indicate that dan walker's contribution was not shall we say helpful in the conversation. dan walker led naga munchetty to the conclusion is herself that she was voicing personal opinions and should stop. so it is a more complex and nuanced situation and some of the people who have reacted to the headlines in the newspapers and other and elsewhere have appreciated. what's puzzling some viewers as well is that naga munchetty specifically

said in the clip was that she specifically wasn't accusing anyone of anything. how did the bbc come to the conclusion that somehow her comments crossed a line and it seems to be accusing trump? she said that at the outset but, unfortunately, toward the end of the discussion, she eventually ventured into speculating about what president trump's motives might have been in making the comments that he made. there is no doubt that the comment he made made is racist, to say to anybody from a minority ethnic community orfrom an immigrant community that they should go back to where they came from is just ignorant prejudice and is racism. and she was right to identify it as such. so there'l no doubt that the comment was racist, but what she then went on to say together with dan walker later in the conversation was what was motivating that wasn't was it being done to attract attention or for some other reason. that was one of the things she suggested. dan walker, his first comments did specifically bring up president trump and his possible motivation. so again, i think some viewers are puzzled as to why the complaints unit has chosen to leave him out of their assessment. only because naga munchetty‘s

contribution was what was complained about, not dan walker's. but the question is... but they did actually mention dan walker in their findings. so they did nod in the direction that you are suggesting by indicating that his role perhaps wasn't as helpful might have been. is that enough, or should the bbc‘s complaints unit have actually chosen actively to look at dan walker's role in it rather than going with what the complainant's raised? available to anyone to see, under the current rules which are available publicly, that isn't possible. could you tell us a bit about the process that the executive complaints unit would have used in analysing this debate? did they interview anyone or get any expert opinion or talk to any of those involved? they have been in contact with news, who act on behalf of all of their presenters and reporters if there is a complaint that is being entertained by the executive complaints unit. and talk to them about it and i think they have been in touch through news with naga munchetty herself about the finding. so they talk to those people. but what they're doing,

and it's an objective process, what they're doing is they are looking at whether or not what was done matches the requirements of our editorial guidelines. so that is the process they go through and require us to call in independent experts because if we are expert on our own editorial guidelines, then what are we? that is the process they go through and they write at as independent a judgment as they can to whether that has been fulfilled. a number of prominent broadcasters and viewers like lenny henry and former presenter pat young have publicly said that the bbc has got this badly wrong. will you reconsider the decision to uphold this complaint? i don't think in a lot of the comment that i have seen, unfortunately, that people are focusing on the whole of thejudgment. they're focusing on an idea that naga munchetty has not been allowed to make a statement about the racist nature of the comment that was made and not been allowed to talk about her personal experience of having had that kind of comment made to her.

and her hurt and her anger, and that's. .. this complaint in the guardian was that the whole decision was wrong and that the bbc should reconsider it. i have read it, and unfortunately, there still seems to be confusing things, for example, to be suggesting that the bbc is impartial on the issue of racism, which is simply not true. our values, our impartiality values are not value—free, they do encompass freedom of expression, they do encompass democratic rights, the right, the rule of law. and so on and so forth. you can't have those if you have a society based on racism and excluding some voices on the basis of race. so our impartiality is not value—free and we are not impartial on the issue of racism. david jordan, thank you. thank you for all of your comments this week. please get in touch with your opinions about what you see on bbc tv news online or bbc social media. you may even get to appear on the programme.

you can e—mail newswatch@bbc.co.uk or find us on twitter @newswatchbbc. you can call us. and if you have a look at our website. that's all from us. i'm away next week but rebecca jones will be here at the normal time with more of your thoughts about bbc news coverage. hello there. if you do get some clear skies in the next few hours, you may be treated in the north to the northern lights. but the story really is one of cloudy skies for the majority. we have had some really intense showers during the course of friday, we have saturday some low pressure building up and we have rain anyway moving across northern ireland into parts of mainland uk as well through the rest of the night. so it is very unsettled picture, we are due another 50—100mm of rain on already saturated ground with high river levels, the concerns really are there for flooding. one band made its way swiftly eastwards and deteriorates to showers, as it gradually gets drier, the showers diminish in the north and some early morning mist and fog that clears away,

i think on the whole the afternoon today looks a little bit drier, brighter and it'll feel warmer than the morning. but looming large towards the south—west, the next band of intense rain. now, there's some tropical air mixed in amongst this area of low pressure, so as we saw earlier in the week the potential is there for torrential, persistent rain to move its way in across england and wales, possibly parts of northern ireland and scotland. as well as the rain this time, it's a batch of strong winds again, gale—force winds, but because we have a new moon, a full moon during the evening and overnight, that will allow high tides, so we could see some coastal flooding as well. and it's a similar problem as we go through sunday, the rain only slowly easing away, those strong winds buffeting many areas, and northerly winds set in for scotland and northern ireland, so perhaps here escaping the west of the rain, but it starts to feel colder and then as those north or north—westerly winds set in, it looks as if they will have a sting in their tail and we could

potentially have a spell of gales then later on sunday across wales and england, and if they hit the east coast at the same time as the high tide, that could also cause some coastal inundation because it does look as if it'll be a very strong and gusty north—westerly as well, north—north—westerly. some very inclement weather due over the weekend. there are warnings out, those are on the website, but the heavy rain could lead to further flooding, flash flooding and potential river flooding, gale—force winds as well as high tides. as for the new week, well, it gets colder and remains unsettled. there may be a brief respite from the rain but it is basically an unsettled picture. bye— bye.

this is bbc news — welcome if you're watching here in the uk, on pbs in america or around the globe. i'm maryam moshiri — our top stories: pressure on the white house — the us secretary of state, mike pompeo, is given a week to hand over documents relating to ukraine, as the democrats step up the trump impeachment investigation. meanwhile the special representative to ukraine — kurt volker — has resigned after being named in the whistleblower report. afghanistan steps up security as nine million voters choose their next president despite threats of violence by the taliban. 22 years on, prince harry follows in his mother's footsteps, with a visit to the minefelds in angola.