and the audience too need a negative test along with their ticket to get inside. but, despite this rigorous testing regime, there are still some concerns and some of the local hospitals have warned, if there is an emergency here, they won't necessarily be able to help because they're still inundated with covid patients. here are your hosts for this evening... it's hoped the rules and protocols implemented here in rotterdam could be used as a blueprint for the global revival of live events. now especially, a lot of people are longing for normalness, the good old days, and ifeel like our shows do give you a sense of that and we do it under such strict regulations, which are what allow us to be here. so, who are the ones to watch in the final? my top favourite is definitely france — a beautiful french chanson about stepping out of the shadows and into the light. my second is italy.

this is a real rock vibe. it is all about being with people, it's edgy, it's dirty, but it's also classy and sophisticated. my third favourite is probably malta. this is very much about the power of saying no. it's about a woman in a bar and men offer to buy her a drink and she's like, "no thank you, i'm not your honey." covid has made eurovision�*s mission to bring people together complicated but more coveted than ever. anna holligan, bbc news, rotterdam. that's it. now on bbc one, time for the news where you are. hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. with me are susie boniface— columnist at the daily mirror —

and martin benham, home affairs editor at the evening standard.. at the moment, colour bars where susie is supposed to be. —— susie. hello, merchant. very nice to see you. i'm glad it's notjust me. martin might be using extra hard for his supper tonight. let's look at the front pages, then. the daily mail says princess diana's brother — lord spencer — is demanding scotland yard investigate the bbc over her panorama interview. according to the daily telegraph, the bbc is facing a major shake—up to ensure the martin bashir scandal can never be repeated. while the guardian has the former chair of the bbc trust warning against what he calls the "feeding frenzy" engulfing the corporation — as ministers say they will look at how it's governed, in the wake of damning findings about its 1995 interview. the times focuses on prince harry telling how he used drink and drugs to mask the pain he felt over his mother's death as he accused the royal

family of "total neglect". the sun also picks up on prince harry's interview with oprah winfrey — saying he's left prince charles "deeply hurt" by claiming he let him suffer, as a child. while the daily express says prince harry's latest tv attack may have deepened the family rift beyond repair. and the financial times quotes the chief executive of astrazeneca, who insists its covid—19 vaccine does has a future, as he revealed the uk had priority access to the jab and hit out at the "armchair generals" behind the attacks on the company. we still don't have susie come a she p°p5 we still don't have susie come a she pops up, we will bring her in. let's you and i begin. we will start with the daily mail. spencer, now the police must probe the bbc. this is the princess's brother, what exactly might the police have to

investigate?— might the police have to investigate? might the police have to investiaate? fl ., ':: ::f . ., investigate? it's not 100% clear because, clearly, _ investigate? it's not 100% clear because, clearly, the _ investigate? it's not 100% clear because, clearly, the met - investigate? it's not 100% clear because, clearly, the met has l investigate? it's not 100% clear- because, clearly, the met has looked at this before, clearly lord dyson's report uncovers some new detail, but if you look at what's happened, the story here suggests that earl spencer is asking them to look at whether she was blackmailed or whether she was blackmailed or whether there was fraud involved. clearly there was fraud at the source, but on that particular point, it's not clear to me what the offence would be because, of course, he forged these documents, he tricked her, in effect, and that was reprehensible behaviour, not mature that it reaches the criminal threshold. i'm not an expert on the law, there are better people than me who are more closely versed in the precise nuances of the law as to where the boundary would like, but from a clearly, he had taken advantage of someone while trying to achieve fame and fortune, but i'm not sure a direct link from a legal point of view. there is that issue.

the black no one, from my reading of the reports, that didn't seem to be there. it didn't seem to be a blackmailing to what lord dyson was saying. so i'm not quite sure what earl spencer is potentially driving up there, but, clearly, scotland yard will look at this and investigates, but it may well be, i would suspect, that there isn't a criminal investigation that can be mounted as a result of all of this, certainly criminal charges on top of that that result from it. it'sjust criminal charges on top of that that result from it. it's just terrible behaviour by martin bashir and one or two others, particularly martin bashir, because the rest of it is four different omens to the story, of course, what martin bashir did himself, not a criminal offence, can't possibly see that there was any crime committed there, and then obviously the failure to investigate properly and ask the right questions by a number of investigators —— journalists, the former director general, and subsequently the

elements of cover—up where what they did know wasn't communicated when other journalists were communicated when otherjournalists were asking questions about what had actually happened. so there were four elements in essence to the story, but the first one, the on the when i would see at any risk of criminal action being taken is obviously what martin bashir dead. quite aware how that might result in a criminal prosecution. it can't quite see myself, but i could easily be wrong, but let's see what happens. be wrong, but let's see what happens-_ be wrong, but let's see what ha ens. ., be wrong, but let's see what ha ens. a, ., .,, happens. martin, you can now drop rev haven't— happens. martin, you can now drop rev haven't got _ happens. martin, you can now drop rev haven't got us _ happens. martin, you can now drop rev haven't got us off _ happens. martin, you can now drop rev haven't got us off to _ happens. martin, you can now drop rev haven't got us off to a - happens. martin, you can now drop rev haven't got us off to a valiant . rev haven't got us off to a valiant and loquacious start, because, you pay extra for words like that, because susie is joining pay extra for words like that, because susie isjoining us. we are so glad to see you, susie. can you hear us all right?— hear us all right? absolutely fine can ou? hear us all right? absolutely fine can you? we _ hear us all right? absolutely fine can you? we can _ hear us all right? absolutely fine can you? we can see _ hear us all right? absolutely fine can you? we can see you - hear us all right? absolutely fine can you? we can see you and - hear us all right? absolutely fine can you? we can see you and wej hear us all right? absolutely fine - can you? we can see you and we can hear ou. can you? we can see you and we can hear you- it _ can you? we can see you and we can hearyou- it is — can you? we can see you and we can hear you. it is glorious. _ can you? we can see you and we can hear you. it is glorious. a _ can you? we can see you and we can hear you. it is glorious. a police - hear you. it is glorious. a police investigation potentially, the met is saying that they will look again in light of the lord dyson report. what criminalisty might there be in your view? why only copy end of what martin was saying there, but i think

it sounds like you would agree with me, there is not really much in the way of evidence for forgery and fraud that is there to hold water. the police have looked at it before and found there was no such evidence. they have to have something fresh and new. i read the dyson report today and i didn't see anything in there that indicated criminalisty. foulness, horrible behaviour, stupidity on the part of the bbc executives, sorry, guys, but nothing that really reached a threshold of criminalisty. i think this is one of those cases where there is a lot of upset. the police have to say, well, we will look at it again, yes, in much the same way that a mother might say, yes, well, i will think about taking you to the cinema later on if you are good. it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen. i think bbc managers have been called worse than you have just called them in the last 2a hours by quite a few people in lots of different quarters. stay with you,

susie for the daily telegraph. bbc faces a shake—up in the wake of the martin bashir row. what sort of shake—up this time? goes inside the corporation will think we have ended with nothing but shake—ups. you're basically a rattle at this stage, collecting ten, but i think, basically, this isjust, you know, didn't matter what the story would be this week am and i'm notjust saying this because i'm on the bbc come i would save any work meant as what the story was this week and if there was an anti—bbc story, there would be someone coming out and say, we need to shake—up the bbc, and is there a review, and let's use this as an excuse. if you don't like the bbc, than this absolutely takes all your boxes, and optical. if you do like them, it's quite difficult to defend some of the things that it's done, but, fundamentally, everything that the bbc says and does is so massive that the behaviour of one reporter, a few of his bosses and

some fairly idiotic behaviour along time ago and slightly more recently isn't enough to undermine everything that the bbc does in my not very humble opinion. it'sjust that the bbc does in my not very humble opinion. it's just people who have got a reason to, you know, bang on about this right now and using it for their own ends, and frankly, and the same thing that happened to diana through her entire life, to be fair, is that she has been exploited, her memory is being exploited, her memory is being exploited now by people who want to use it to make a political point, by people who want to say, you know, all the press, all the journalists are terrible, i think we just need to remember a little bit and, remember, there are some things in the report that have got very little coverage and are not getting mentioned much, dyson found that diana was desperate to do an interview, that she was already in negotiations with panorama before martin bashir got involved, that she had through lots of conspiracy theories before that because of the way her life was going at that time. in his opinion, she would've always

given an interview anyway. so a lot of the things that may have fallen out as a result of this interview would perhaps have happened if martin bashir never turned up and it wasn't a panorama at all, perhaps if she had done the same thing her husband had done the year before and spoke to itb, she would've said much of the same things in much of the same things might have fallen out, but, of course, he is not being accused of doing anything remotely like martin bashir did. this is the thing i have always said to any otherjournalist is that it is not worth ever telling a lie to get a story because it always comes back to bite you, it gets a short—term win, long—term absolute disaster, because as what has happened here, thank you, martin bashir every journalist in the world in an abject lesson on how not to do it, and there are also reports now tonight that he has done the same thing on other stories. of course, that he has done the same thing on otherstories. of course, if that he has done the same thing on other stories. of course, if you get one bad journalist, if they've done it once, they've done it a times. let's look at the guardian. feeding frenzy over diana reports, according

to former chair of the bbc trust. the suggestion is that there would be some kind of editorial board to provide oversight which will have a lot of people inside the bbc scratching their heads because we seem to have a lot of managers who were tasked with that. yes. seem to have a lot of managers who were tasked with that.— were tasked with that. yes, again, i a . ree with were tasked with that. yes, again, i agree with what _ were tasked with that. yes, again, i agree with what susie _ were tasked with that. yes, again, i agree with what susie said - were tasked with that. yes, again, i agree with what susie said there, i agree with what susie said there, because — agree with what susie said there, because i— agree with what susie said there, because i don't think it should be used _ because i don't think it should be used as_ because i don't think it should be used as a — because i don't think it should be used as a general stick it to the bbc, _ used as a general stick it to the bbc, and — used as a general stick it to the bbc, and if you look at what has happened — bbc, and if you look at what has happened here, what went wrong was there was— happened here, what went wrong was there was a _ happened here, what went wrong was there was a rogue reporter in the first place. — there was a rogue reporter in the first place, supported, unfortunately, it seems by certainly his executive producer who went to raise _ his executive producer who went to raise concerns and then basically turned _ raise concerns and then basically turned on — raise concerns and then basically turned on them and attacked them and told them _ turned on them and attacked them and told them to shut up, basically, and then after— told them to shut up, basically, and then after that series of executives who looked into it but didn't ask the right— who looked into it but didn't ask the right questions and weren't rigorous — the right questions and weren't rigorous enough gave them too much credibility— rigorous enough gave them too much credibility and were fogged off in effect _ credibility and were fogged off in effect when he told lies to them.

there _ effect when he told lies to them. there wasn't a process there, and the mentally whole eventually went to the _ the mentally whole eventually went to the actual board that existed, some _ to the actual board that existed, some talk— to the actual board that existed, some talk about having another on top of— some talk about having another on top of the — some talk about having another on top of the board ofjournalists to look at _ top of the board ofjournalists to look at this, but when he went to that board, — look at this, but when he went to that board, it wasn't that he told them _ that board, it wasn't that he told them what — that board, it wasn't that he told them what had happened, what's up and find _ them what had happened, what's up and find out about the lies and forgery, — and find out about the lies and forgery, he didn't actually present all about — forgery, he didn't actually present allabout. he came forgery, he didn't actually present all about. he came with the presentation to them that martin bashir— presentation to them that martin bashir was an honest and straightforward person who had a lapse _ straightforward person who had a lapse he — straightforward person who had a lapse. he didn't give them the full facts and — lapse. he didn't give them the full facts and say that it wasn't even there. _ facts and say that it wasn't even there, there was a process, but it was people — there, there was a process, but it was people in the process who weren't— was people in the process who weren't doing individual things correctty~ _ weren't doing individual things correctly. it is a little bit hard, possibly, — correctly. it is a little bit hard, possibly, to second—guess that if people _ possibly, to second—guess that if people do— possibly, to second—guess that if people do the wrong thing, the wrong questions _ people do the wrong thing, the wrong questions aren't diligent enough. of course _ questions aren't diligent enough. of course me _ questions aren't diligent enough. of course me can argue that because they are _ course me can argue that because they are insiders, therefore they are less — they are insiders, therefore they are less prone to be as rigorous as they might — are less prone to be as rigorous as they might become and i suppose there _ they might become and i suppose there is— they might become and i suppose there is something to that, but it's all looks— there is something to that, but it's all looks terrible with hindsight. it's all looks terrible with hindsight. it's hot — all looks terrible with hindsight. it's not quite so obvious how that

sort of— it's not quite so obvious how that sort of problem can be safeguarded against _ sort of problem can be safeguarded against by— sort of problem can be safeguarded against by having some board on top of the _ against by having some board on top of the great pyramid that already exists _ of the great pyramid that already exists it— of the great pyramid that already exists. �* ., . ~ of the great pyramid that already exists. �* ., . ,, ., . , of the great pyramid that already exists.�* .,. .,_ �*, exists. a lack of curiosity it's been described, _ exists. a lack of curiosity it's been described, if— exists. a lack of curiosity it's been described, if you - exists. a lack of curiosity it's been described, if you want | exists. a lack of curiosity it's - been described, if you want another fancy word. as it said, it said that when he said it's, diana came back and said you haven't seen this bank statements. nobody thought about the possibility, even though, actually, journalists later on were asking about this possibility that they had been shown to earl spencer as a way of ingratiating himself aboard spence all and finding a way to diana to get himself a foot in the door so he would get the interview, which is susiejust door so he would get the interview, which is susie just said, door so he would get the interview, which is susiejust said, she door so he would get the interview, which is susie just said, she was, lord dowson, ithink which is susie just said, she was, lord dowson, i think what william has said about it is actually probably right that because he fed all of these other conspiracy stories to her, that may have deepened her rift with the royal family. it had a big impact on some

of the people who were falsely accused of breaking the papers and selling stories against diana, so, it may well have worsened the situation. i don't think... it's not as though that interview, if it hadn't happened there would have never been an interview, and some of the damage that has already started wouldn't have continued, and things would've ended not necessarily well either. ., would've ended not necessarily well either. . , , ., , ., , either. that seems to be a widely held view- _ either. that seems to be a widely held view- a _ either. that seems to be a widely held view. a quick _ either. that seems to be a widely held view. a quick comment - either. that seems to be a widely held view. a quick comment for l either. that seems to be a widely i held view. a quick comment for both of you, susie, the suggestion that the royal rift has deepened with the latest claims by prince harry that he was neglected as a child, just briefly from both of you if you want. prince harry criticised charles for being uncaring, talking about being in mental anguish, being uncaring, talking about being in mentalanguish, it's being uncaring, talking about being in mental anguish, it's like diana never died, he has done the exact same thing that she did and that panorama interview 26 years ago, and of course, she did it with more impact because she'd only done two interviews in her life and that was the second one. in terry, i think,

arguably badly times, the same time as this, and people are less bothered about it these days, sadly, they shouldn't be, but they are. the su: aestion they shouldn't be, but they are. the suggestion is that this rift might never be healed. how can anybody know that? families are peculiar things, and all sorts of issues can be sorted out, not everybody plays out their family issues, though, be sorted out, not everybody plays out theirfamily issues, though, in the international press. sorry, martin. i the international press. sorry, martin. ., , the international press. sorry, martin. ., ., the international press. sorry, martin. ., ~ martin. i was going to say, i think that's the problem, _ martin. i was going to say, i think that's the problem, isn't - martin. i was going to say, i think that's the problem, isn't it? - martin. i was going to say, i think that's the problem, isn't it? i - that's the problem, isn't it? i don't — that's the problem, isn't it? i don't think, of course, every family operates— don't think, of course, every family operates in— don't think, of course, every family operates in a — don't think, of course, every family operates in a different way, but it's not— operates in a different way, but it's not a — operates in a different way, but it's not a good idea, i think i'm a friendly, — it's not a good idea, i think i'm a friendly, if— it's not a good idea, i think i'm a friendly, if bad things have happened necessarily for bad—mouthing your parents, whatever happened. _ bad—mouthing your parents, whatever happened, to be frank, it'sjust not a desirable — happened, to be frank, it'sjust not a desirable way to do it, especially if you _ a desirable way to do it, especially if you are — a desirable way to do it, especially if you are somebody who doesn't like media _ if you are somebody who doesn't like media attention, apparently. it's not constructive. of course, it may be that _ not constructive. of course, it may be that washing it all out in this way, _ be that washing it all out in this way, that— be that washing it all out in this way, that it may finally be a reconciliation, i'm sure on all sides. — reconciliation, i'm sure on all

sides, actually. i'm sure charles would _ sides, actually. i'm sure charles would like — sides, actually. i'm sure charles would like a