the first medals of the tokyo olympics have been won. china's yang qian took gold in the women's ten metre air—rifle event. russia's anastasia galashina came second — and switzerland's nina christen won bronze. there are another ten gold medals up for grabs on day one of the games. president biden has warned that the united states is facing a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" as the delta variant of coronavirus spreads rapidly in areas where the uptake ofjabs has been low. mr biden said virtually all hospitalisations and deaths were among people who had not been vaccinated. tackling britain's "pingdemic", hundreds more covid testing sites are to be set up across england to ensure essential staff can keep working. a government scheme for the food and supermarket sector is being extended to some transport and emergency services.

now on bbc news, the media show. hello. this might sound like the plot of a hollywood spy movie, and indeed in the future it might get made into one, but this week, something called the pegasus project is news. a group of news outlets from ten countries has banded together to expose the alleged use of phone hacking to spy on leading journalists, politicians and human rights activists across the world. among them are heads of state — emmanuel macron�*s phone number appears on the list of alleged targets. the spyware used is called pegasus and it is made by an israeli surveillance firm. the revelations have been dropping all week, so how do you pull off a series of global scoops like this? we are joined by some of thejournalists behind it. also today, the role that specialist fact checkers play in journalism.

in the last 18 months, this has been a story of what is and is not true. some stories of course are easy to disprove. the vaccine does not contain a microchip from bill gates, but how do we navigate the grey areas? donald trump's claim for example that covid—19 could come from a chinese laboratory was widely branded as a conspiracy theory by the media and you could not share it on some social media platforms, but that changed a few weeks ago when president biden said that it was a possibility. we are going to be talking about that and more a bit later with claire milne who is the acting editor of full fact, the uk fact=checking organisation and ian birrell who is a contributing editor of the mail on sunday. let's start with that pegasus project which has been making headlines all week. laurent richard is the director and founder of forbidden stories, the ngo which got hold of this

leaked list of 50,000 possible targets for surveillance, and paul lewis is head of investigations at the guardian which is one of the partners of the pegasus project. laurent, before we get into how you coordinated all of this and what it might tell us about the power of collective journalism, just tell us, how does this pegasus spyware work? what does it actually do to a phone? it is basically a spyware that is attacking your phone and you do not know that, it is an invisible attack. it will turn your phone into a spy in your pocket and then the pegasus software will take the entire control of your device, which means they will know everything you're doing with your device, who you are talking to, they will know the messages that you are sending, even if they are encrypted, can activate the camera, they can know basically everything and then the pegasus software

will transfer your secrets, your data, to the person that is tracking you, to the government that is tracking you, so this is considered as a weapon by the israeli defence minister. you need a licence, a military licence, to be able to export that. it is sold by a company called nso group, that is an israeli company. most of those people working inside that company are coming from the military in israel and n50 is selling that to state actors. now, laurent, nso have given us this statement. they have said that your reports are full of wrong assumptions and uncorroborated theories and they deny any wrongdoing. they say that the software is only supplied to countries with good human rights records and it is intended for use against criminals and terrorists. so, do you know who has been using it? who nso group have

sold this spyware to? yes, we do know and we know that those countries do not have good human rights records. when we talk about azerbaijan, they do not have good human rights records. same for morocco, same for mexico, for saudi arabia. we know that when you are a journalist in azerbaijan, like khadija ismayilova, and you want to investigate corruption with that kind of regime that is having a lot ofjournalists and political opponents injail, you are taking a lot of risk and you are surveilled. and that was not the first time that khadija was surveilled, but this time we were able to get the evidence of the hacking of the device of khadija. clearly nso company is selling that kind of cyber weapons to countries with a very sad and bad track record in terms of human rights abuses. paul lewis, of the guardian, if i can bring you in here. there are 17 news outlets partnering on this. how did the guardian come to be one of them? well, we were invited

into this project by laurent at forbidden stories. he contacted us. we had to be very careful when we were reporting this about conversing on phones, as you can imagine, because phones are obviously at risk and indeed some of the reporters who worked on this project, forensics showed that they had pegasus, this spyware, on their phones. anyhow, laurent contacted us here at the guardian and said he would like to invite us into a project. i visited, with a delegation from the guardian, his offices in paris. he showed us this data and we were stunned. there were 50,000 numbers of people who had been selected as persons of interest by client governments of n50. we had never seen anything like this before and it was obviously going to be a very big story. so the moment laurent invited us in, we were interested the moment we saw

the data and most importantly, the moment we realised that there was forensic evidence to support the data, that we had done forensic examinations on phones and found pegasus, we were committed to seeing if we could get this project out with him. laurent, let's talk about the data, because at the heart of your reporting is this list of 50,000 phone numbers, which you say is a wish list of targets for users of pegasus. 0n the list are journalists, heads of state and so on. what can you tell us about how you got hold of that list? i can tell you nothing, basically. of course, we cannot comment for many reasons that you can understand, but the most important things are what we see on that list at least and what it is telling us about how this software has been used againstjournalists, human rights defenders, political opponents. but as paul was explaining, the good thing in that project

is that we were able to get evidence and this is really the first time i think in history of modern spying that we get evidence and we can show the face of the victims. we were able to find some thanks to the brilliant work amnesty international security lab, that is a group of people who are able to set up a methodology and protocol to go into the device and find out if there were some traces of infection. so that is really what, asjournalists, we need when we are publishing such important stories and this is why we, during all the past months, were able to approach some people telling them that we have good reasons to believe they were surveilled and convincing them to agree to do a forensic investigation into the device and then we were able to find some traces a lot of times. paul, amnesty international did play this crucial role in analysing some of the actual phones that you obtained from people on the list.

as i understand it, they were able to detect traces of the pegasus software on 37 phones and you got hold of 67 to test, which is quite a high hit rate. i wonder paul, though, amnesty is a campaigning charity. it is rather unusual, isn't it, for a journalist to be outsourcing this forensic work to a third party? did you feel they were impartial enough to partner with you? i think the unusual thing would be if a journalist tried to do that kind of advanced forensic work on a mobile phone themselves. amnesty international security lab is run by one of the world experts in cyber security. you do make an important point, andrea, that we were reliant on the work they were doing and that is why we got both their methodology and the sample of their forensics on devices peer reviewed by citizen lab, which is a research group very well respected at the university of toronto and they concluded that

their methods were sound. i mean, were you concerned yourselves, paul, as you were dealing with this, that your own phones were being hacked? how do you even go about talking to people if you feel their phones have been compromised? i just wonder what are the nuts and bolts of that conversation? how do you actually reach out to somebody when you think that their phone has been hacked? it is incredibly hard. you have to have a face—to—face meeting and doing that in the midst of a pandemic is even more difficult. logistically speaking, i think this is probably the hardest project that i have ever been involved in. when talking to colleagues, when talking to editors here at the guardian, when speaking even to our in—house lawyers, we had to make sure that phones were not in the vicinity. it makes you realise how reliant on phones we all are, but particularlyjournalists, increasingly we rely on them not just for emails but for finding stories, tweeting, finding out

is what is going on and to suddenly be detached from your device, because you're constantly aware that it could easily be used as a surveillance tool, requires a lot of reworking. the last time i think the guardian had to make such significant adjustments was when we were working on the edward snowden disclosures and i think there are some parallels with that. that was obviously 2013, the difference i think was that snowden was revealing the apparatus that organisations like like the nsa and gchq used to surveil mass populations. what we had here was quite different. this was identifying the people who we believe were the potential targets of this kind of technology and it _ is as laurent said at the outset, that enabled us to identify real people, people who have got stories, people like the french minister yesterday who it was revealed had traces of pegasus activity on his phone and the thing to remember here, andrea, the thing that is most important is that n50 says, it has always said, that this

technology is only supposed to be used for monitoring criminals and terrorists. it has said it contractually requires government to only use this technology to monitor criminals and terrorists. what we have found severely undermines that. paul, and nso has also said that the numbers on this list are not related to nso group in any way and they say that your claim is erroneous and a false. how do you respond to that? do not think we ever expected them to be _ do not think we ever expected them to be overjoyed with these stories or even_ to be overjoyed with these stories or even accept them, that we stand by our— or even accept them, that we stand by our reporting. when you look at the data _ by our reporting. when you look at the data and the connection to the forensics. — the data and the connection to the forensics, it is quite compelling full doc— forensics, it is quite compelling full doc i — forensics, it is quite compelling full doc i mention that this french minister_ full doc i mention that this french ministerjust now, he was selected in this_ ministerjust now, he was selected in this list— ministerjust now, he was selected in this list of 15 seconds before pegasus— in this list of 15 seconds before pegasus activity appeared on his phone — pegasus activity appeared on his phone. there are multiple examples

that we _ phone. there are multiple examples that we can — phone. there are multiple examples that we can show and as you said, a example. _ that we can show and as you said, a example, forensics on 67 phones, 37 of those _ example, forensics on 67 phones, 37 of those showed some form of pegasus activity _ of those showed some form of pegasus activity recording to a frantic analysis— activity recording to a frantic analysis and for us, we think that is quite _ analysis and for us, we think that is quite a — analysis and for us, we think that is quite a compelling link. laurent, we 'ust is quite a compelling link. laurent, we just mentioned _ is quite a compelling link. laurent, we just mentioned the _ is quite a compelling link. laurent, we just mentioned the edward - is quite a compelling link. laurent, - we just mentioned the edward snowden and we have seen this before with panama papers, this idea of teaming up panama papers, this idea of teaming up with a range of news outlets rather than working with eight single one. is it the scale, the 50,000 numbers, that means that you want to spread this around, or why do you choose such a large group of media outlets? it is do you choose such a large group of media outlets?— media outlets? it is not only the scale. of course, _ media outlets? it is not only the scale. of course, first _ media outlets? it is not only the scale. of course, first there - media outlets? it is not only the scale. of course, first there is i media outlets? it is not only the scale. of course, first there is a | scale. of course, first there is a scale, 50,000 numbers, so that would be a big mistake to consider you can do that alone. so you need people to work with you, you need journalists with specific knowledge of some

specific countries to have efficient reporting, but then there is a question about collaboration and protection and definitely that pegasus project, we were facing one company that is well known to be non—transparent and tender governments, ten states, who are well known to not love journalists, so this is quite a difficult and complex investigation with a lot of risk for many reporters and especially for some reporters who are working from difficult areas. —— ten governments. so clearly it is making sure that even if you kill the messenger, you never kill the message and we at forbidden stories about role was to coordinate the

effort and a huge thanks to our small team here, we are 12 people with one brain at the middle of that, the coordinator of all that big effort, and all that collaboration makes really a lot of sense. it is so wide, that project was unstoppable. sense. it is so wide, that pro'ect was unstoppablei sense. it is so wide, that pro'ect was unstoppable. paul lewis, head of investigations — was unstoppable. paul lewis, head of investigations at _ was unstoppable. paul lewis, head of investigations at the _ was unstoppable. paul lewis, head of investigations at the guardian - was unstoppable. paul lewis, head of investigations at the guardian and - investigations at the guardian and laurent richard, director and founder of forbidden stories, thank you. let's turn back to that topic i mentioned at the start of the programme, fact checking and its role injournalism. every mainstream news outlet these days has a resident fact checker and the growth of social media and its ability to spread wrong information means a whole market now exists for professional fact checkers. but the industry has taken a bit of a knock, industry has taken a bit of a knock, in the us at least, because it donald trump was like a claim that covid originated in a wuhan

laboratory has been taken to receive. the claim was given the category pants on fire last year. now they have archived that assessment and added an editors note. the washington post is also updated articles which were initially dismissive, but these corrections have not come about because of new evidence. instead, they come about because president biden has admitted that it is a possibility. so, how is it fact checking itself become politicised? the stakes are high, of course, biden says dates information on facebook was killing people. a lot to unpack here, so let's talk to claire milne and ian birrell. ian recently found that a piece of his work that mentioned the lambert league theory was being suppressed by facebook. claire, set out the basics, what is it that full factor

does, who do work for? taste basics, what is it that full factor does, who do work for?- basics, what is it that full factor does, who do work for? we are an independent _ does, who do work for? we are an independent organisation. - does, who do work for? we are an independent organisation. we - does, who do work for? we are an independent organisation. we fact check claims that appear in all sorts of different places on social media, traditional media, games from politicians and public figures as well and all of that we publish on our website and readers can check that information for themselves and make up their own mind of what they think that the various claims that may be coming across in their day—to—day. we do work with a number of different organisations, for example we are part of facebook�*s third party fact checking programme here in the uk which means we fact check misinformation we see on that platform. we also encourage our readers to send as things they see on whatsapp. that is a whole different can of worms on whatsapp because the particular elements of that platform, the fact it is encrypted make it much more

challenging to fact check, but we do fact checking worked on there and we also last year, during the pandemic, we worked with google .org and worked with staff from them and with others around the world. who worked with staff from them and with others around the world.— others around the world. who funds that ou? others around the world. who funds that you? you _ others around the world. who funds that you? you are _ others around the world. who funds that you? you are funded _ others around the world. who funds that you? you are funded by - others around the world. who funds i that you? you are funded by facebook and google when you work with them? for those projects, yes, we are funded by a wide range of different organisations, by individual donations from readers and supporters as well and all that information is available on our website. transparency about where we are funded is something we are keen to promote so that information is available online.— available online. ian, you wrote this online _ available online. ian, you wrote this online piece _ available online. ian, you wrote this online piece when - available online. ian, you wrote this online piece when you - available online. ian, you wrote - this online piece when you mentioned the wuhan lab league theory, so tell us about it and what's happened when you try to share it on facebook? it you try to share it on facebook? it was a piece i did in february after the who — was a piece i did in february after the who study group delivered its report— the who study group delivered its report from we had. i had been

investigating the whole lab league theory— investigating the whole lab league theory since april and what has been very clear— theory since april and what has been very clear that there are two strands _ very clear that there are two strands to this whole debate. 0ne very clear that there are two strands to this whole debate. one is was there _ strands to this whole debate. one is was there a — strands to this whole debate. one is was there a lab at legal knots, to which _ was there a lab at legal knots, to which we — was there a lab at legal knots, to which we still have no idea and the other— which we still have no idea and the other has— which we still have no idea and the other has been this scientific cover-up _ other has been this scientific cover—up in this view that it is a conspiracy— cover—up in this view that it is a conspiracy theory and it should not be discussed, partly in a bowl's involvement. —— one was there a lab leak or— involvement. —— one was there a lab leak or not? — involvement. —— one was there a lab ieakor not? it— involvement. —— one was there a lab leak or not? it is the kind of thing that british — leak or not? it is the kind of thing that british and american governments later said themselves and to— governments later said themselves and to dross, the head of the who, later downgraded the leak. as soon as this _ later downgraded the leak. as soon as this was — later downgraded the leak. as soon as this was posted, it appeared on facebook— as this was posted, it appeared on facebook and i was amazed to discover— facebook and i was amazed to discover that it had been taken down

and are _ discover that it had been taken down and are blocked for access on the grounds — and are blocked for access on the grounds that it was a conspiracy theory — grounds that it was a conspiracy theory for— grounds that it was a conspiracy theory. for me, this is obviously quite _ theory. for me, this is obviously quite a _ theory. for me, this is obviously quite a serious allegation, i hope i am seen _ quite a serious allegation, i hope i am seen as— quite a serious allegation, i hope i am seen as a serious journalist, quite a serious allegation, i hope i am seen as a seriousjournalist, i certainly— am seen as a seriousjournalist, i certainly take pride in my work as being _ certainly take pride in my work as being serious and rooted in evidence and i_ being serious and rooted in evidence and i took— being serious and rooted in evidence and i took issue. i got hold of the head _ and i took issue. i got hold of the head of— and i took issue. i got hold of the head of a — and i took issue. i got hold of the head of a facebook in europe and complained and they took it down relatively— complained and they took it down relatively quickly. however, it does show _ relatively quickly. however, it does show that— relatively quickly. however, it does show that there is this issue about a valid _ show that there is this issue about a valid discussion being blocked on conspiracy— a valid discussion being blocked on conspiracy grounds and obviously i was able _ conspiracy grounds and obviously i was able to get hold of facebook, but had _ was able to get hold of facebook, but had been a perhaps a less established journalist, a new voice, younqer— established journalist, a new voice, youngerjournalist, i might not have been _ youngerjournalist, i might not have been able _ youngerjournalist, i might not have been able to get it taken down and that could — been able to get it taken down and that could have really wrecked my reputation. that could have really wrecked my reutation. , reputation. indeed. did facebook actually tell _ reputation. indeed. did facebook actually tell you _ reputation. indeed. did facebook actually tell you why _ reputation. indeed. did facebook actually tell you why they - reputation. indeed. did facebook actually tell you why they had - actually tell you why they had labelled it as containing false information?— labelled it as containing false information? ., , ., , information? no, they did not, but art of information? no, they did not, but part of the — information? no, they did not, but part of the reason _ information? no, they did not, but part of the reason is _ information? no, they did not, but part of the reason is they - information? no, they did not, but part of the reason is they rely - information? no, they did not, but part of the reason is they rely on i part of the reason is they rely on artificial— part of the reason is they rely on artificial intelligence and part of the reason is that they used a lot of their—

the reason is that they used a lot of their bases for what they were saying _ of their bases for what they were saying on— of their bases for what they were saying on a now discredited article that appeared in the lancet and they use that _ that appeared in the lancet and they use that is _ that appeared in the lancet and they use that is the basis for running out these — use that is the basis for running out these sorts of discussions and it is a _ out these sorts of discussions and it is a serious concern. does make a ruling _ it is a serious concern. does make a ruling out _ it is a serious concern. does make a ruling out these sorts of discussions. | ruling out these sorts of discussions.— ruling out these sorts of discussions. , ., ., ,., discussions. i 'ust wonder about the kind of rating — discussions. i just wonder about the kind of rating system. _ discussions. i just wonder about the kind of rating system. i _ discussions. i just wonder about the kind of rating system. i mentioned l kind of rating system. i mentioned it slightly tongue and cheek in the introduction, that pelleted fact uses this pants on fire and that is what they called this lab leak. —— that politifact uses this. we what they called this lab leak. -- that politifact uses this.- what they called this lab leak. -- that politifact uses this. we do not use a rating _ that politifact uses this. we do not use a rating system _ that politifact uses this. we do not use a rating system across - that politifact uses this. we do not use a rating system across the - that politifact uses this. we do not| use a rating system across the rest of our work. there is a lot of nuance in the claims we come across and it is not often easy to label them pants on fire for example. there are ratings that are used on a facebook which are separate to that which basically give, once we have

written a fact check, how inaccurate we think the claim is, but there is that across the broader part of our work and there are often a lot of shades of grey and it can be hard to label it in that way. ion. shades of grey and it can be hard to label it in that way.— label it in that way. ian, i wonder if ou label it in that way. ian, i wonder if you think _ label it in that way. ian, i wonder if you think that _ label it in that way. ian, i wonder if you think that the _ label it in that way. ian, i wonder if you think that the fact - label it in that way. ian, i wonder if you think that the fact that - if you think that the fact that donald trump had been promoting the covid lab league theory when he was still in office meant that certain sections of the media were to quick to dismiss it? if the media were in the mindset of trump said there and he says a lot of nonsense so it must not be true, does that play into it? i think it definitely does play into it, i i think it definitely does play into it. iwas— i think it definitely does play into it, i was very nervous for that reason — it, i was very nervous for that reason because i thought it was conspiracy theory and the more i looked. — conspiracy theory and the more i looked, the more i became convinced that there _ looked, the more i became convinced that there was a theory that deserved to be examined and that it was wrong _ deserved to be examined and that it was wrong that it was being stifled and silenced and i think if in fact checkinq — and silenced and i think if in fact checking organisation as you say did

not look— checking organisation as you say did not look at — checking organisation as you say did not look at the evidence as emily went— not look at the evidence as emily went with — not look at the evidence as emily went with the idea that it was conspiracy theory, itjust went with the idea that it was conspiracy theory, it just shows went with the idea that it was conspiracy theory, itjust shows it is not _ conspiracy theory, itjust shows it is not a _ conspiracy theory, itjust shows it is not a valid fact checking organisation because there are no facts _ organisation because there are no facts to— organisation because there are no facts to say that the laboratory leak is — facts to say that the laboratory leak is wrong, we do not know, there are no— leak is wrong, we do not know, there are no facts— leak is wrong, we do not know, there are no facts and it remains a very open— are no facts and it remains a very open debate. i think the important is that— open debate. i think the important is that any— open debate. i think the important is that any organisation for media or fact _ is that any organisation for media or fact checking, they had to be open _ or fact checking, they had to be open to— or fact checking, they had to be open to challenge and be transparent and if— open to challenge and be transparent and if facts _ open to challenge and be transparent and if facts still emerge and they change _ and if facts still emerge and they change it. — and if facts still emerge and they change it, they have to be honest about— change it, they have to be honest about that — change it, they have to be honest about that-— change it, they have to be honest about that. . . , ., ., about that. claire, i was reading a iece in about that. claire, i was reading a piece in the _ about that. claire, i was reading a piece in the american _ about that. claire, i was reading a piece in the american scientific. piece in the american scientific entitled the psychology of fact checking and the author was proposing what they call adversarial fact checking, which would pair up journalist from different publications with opposing views to fact check together. the idea would be at we try to get rid of the inherent bias. what do you make of that? ., , ., inherent bias. what do you make of that? . , ., , that? certainly an interesting proposition- _ that? certainly an interesting proposition. at _ that? certainly an interesting proposition. at full _ that? certainly an interesting proposition. at full fact - that? certainly an interesting proposition. at full fact we i that? certainly an interesting i proposition. at full fact we have that? certainly an interesting - proposition. at full fact we have a lot of processes in place to try and

ensure impartiality and make sure that there are not the kind of biases that you are referring to comments and that stance ramped from our recruitment process, we have strict rules on impartiality that our staff have to adhere to, as i mentioned before, we make sure we are being transparent about who funds us, so people can see that and make sure it is from a wide range of sources to maintain impartiality and independence and as well as that, we are very open to being challenged. we are human fact checkers, we get things wrong on occasion and so we make sure we have a transparent corrections process, people can get in touch with us if they disagree with something we have written or if they think that we have something wrong, we will look at that and publish corrections on our website as well. . ., ., ., as well. ian, what do we need than need fact checkers? _ as well. ian, what do we need than need fact checkers? this _ as well. ian, what do we need than need fact checkers? this is - as well. ian, what do we need than need fact checkers? this is not - as well. ian, what do we need than need fact checkers? this is not the j need fact checkers? this is not the job ofjournalists? i wonder what it says about this growing distrust the journalists, the growing concerns

about every bone having their own reality, their own truth? aren't journalist meant to check their own facts? , , ., , , .,, ., facts? they should, but they operate a ve hi . h facts? they should, but they operate a very high pressure, _ facts? they should, but they operate a very high pressure, very _ facts? they should, but they operate a very high pressure, very fast, - facts? they should, but they operate a very high pressure, very fast, and l a very high pressure, very fast, and make _ a very high pressure, very fast, and make mistakes, everyone makes mistakes — make mistakes, everyone makes mistakes i— make mistakes, everyone makes mistakes. i think anything that adds to the _ mistakes. i think anything that adds to the armoury that allows people to check _ to the armoury that allows people to check facts, the public to make up their— check facts, the public to make up their own — check facts, the public to make up their own minds, it helpsjournalist find facts _ their own minds, it helpsjournalist find facts as well is a good thing. we have — find facts as well is a good thing. we have major distrust in an age with tots— we have major distrust in an age with lots of information coming at you from — with lots of information coming at you from all sides and i think it is only a _ you from all sides and i think it is only a good — you from all sides and i think it is only a good thing, anything that helps _ only a good thing, anything that helps provide the stability and a facts _ helps provide the stability and a facts and — helps provide the stability and a facts and evidence within the debate should _ facts and evidence within the debate should be _ facts and evidence within the debate should be welcomed.— should be welcomed. claire, it strikes me _ should be welcomed. claire, it strikes me you _ should be welcomed. claire, it strikes me you have _ should be welcomed. claire, it strikes me you have a - should be welcomed. claire, it strikes me you have a huge . strikes me you have a huge responsibility. brute strikes me you have a huge responsibility.— strikes me you have a huge responsibility. strikes me you have a huge resonsibili . ~ ., ., , ., responsibility. we do and there is a lot of misinformation _ responsibility. we do and there is a lot of misinformation there - responsibility. we do and there is a lot of misinformation there to - responsibility. we do and there is a lot of misinformation there to fact. lot of misinformation there to fact check. we work to make sure that as i say, we give people the information they need to make up their own minds so that that is

there for them. claire milne, thank you very much indeed, the acting editor of full facts and ian birrell, contributing editor of the mail on sunday. thank you both very much indeed and indeed thank you to all our guests and thank you to you for listening. i will be back with the media show at the same time next week. hello, everyone. i hope you're doing all right. we're turning a page weather—wise at present. some of us are seeing much less settled conditions with some thunderstorms around. now, they've been rattling around overnight and this morning and will tend to continue for a time as we head through today, and even into tomorrow. but it's also turning cooler, so if the hot weather isn't for you, we will get a relief as far as that is concerned. now, where we see those thunderstorms, we could see some travel disruption with a risk of flooding. really, the areas of main concern are in southern england and parts of south wales.

of course, we'll keep you posted. let's have a look at the map, then. you can see the storms here, they've been moving this morning. gradually further north, but really, across parts of mid—wales, the midlands and north, this is where we'll see the drier and brighter conditions as we continue through today. it's been a misty, murky day across some parts of scotland, eastern coastal fringes, and we'll hang onto that for a time through this afternoon. but central and northern parts hanging on to the warmer conditions. 2a, 25 celsius. but it will be cooler further south where we see those thunderstorms. so we're cranking down the temperatures now, gradually. the storms are a result of what's happening here. 0n the big picture, that area of low pressure, this weather front swirling around it. this is a very slow moving feature. moving through tonight then, further storms for a time. again, slow moving with hail and thunder in the mix as well. a lot of rainfall within a short space of time. potentially falling on a small area as well. it will be a muggy night with lows of ia or 15 celsius.

through the day tomorrow, the low pressure very slowly will want to move towards the east, but it's quite lethargic. again, any storms that we see will be slow moving and persistent, and they'll tend to be focused tomorrow further south, potentially further east as well. so i think many parts of wales tomorrow, and parts of the south—west, will probably see something drier and brighter, and it's a similar story further north. northern ireland, the north of england, scotland seeing more in the way of sunshine come up with some scattered, heavy showers around. and you can see the temperatures here. we are turning them down a bit. where we see the storms and near the low pressure, it will be quite windy as well over the next 2a hours and beyond. low pressure remains nearby. on monday, a mix of sunny spells and scattered heavy showers. again, those thunderstorms will tend to get going as we head through the day, with temperatures reaching 2a or 25 celsius. turning down those temperatures over the next couple of days, unsettled at times.

a this is bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in the uk and around the globe. i'm samantha simmonds. our top stories... a golden start in tokyo — china picks up two of the three gold medal wins so far, with yang qian winning the women's ten metre air rifle. the men's cycling road race is underway, with crowds lining the street in contradiction of official coronavirus advice. president biden warns that the us is facing a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" — as the delta variant of coronavirus spreads. police make arrests in sydney as thousands of anti—lockdown protesters breach covid—i9 restrictions in australia's biggest city. tackling britain's "pingdemic" —

hundreds more covid testing sites are to be set up across england to ensure essential staff can avoid