this is bbc news — the headlines. the united nations has described the war in ukraine as a "horror story of violations against civilians" — and says there's growing evidence war crimes may have been committed. it comes as us satellite images allegedly show a mass burial site near the beseiged southern port city of mariupol. the united nations secretary—general is to travel to moscow for talks with president putin. antonio guterres will meet mr putin on tuesday. a ukrainian deputy prime minister has told the bbc only the un can save the lives of tens of thousands of people stuck in the city of mariupol.

the french presidential election campaign has concluded and voters now have a day to reflect on the competing claims of the two remaining candidates — emmanuel macron and marine le pen. voting is on sunday in an election which is being closely monitored across the european union and beyond. now on bbc news. the media show. hello and welcome to the media show. the star sighting of rupert murdoch's news talk tv network. piers morgan would not deserve a show in the uk but also be streamed on fox nation and on skype news australia in and on skype news australia in a column in the sun and the new york post and a book deal as well. all run by rupert murdoch and all of which is the significant bed on one man grabbing the role�*s attention. let's see what he thinks that's

the bet worth taking. how does this happen, how does this deal get fleshed out? the this happen, how does this deal get fleshed out?— this happen, how does this deal get fleshed out? the whole blow u . get fleshed out? the whole blow u- with get fleshed out? the whole blow up with meghan _ get fleshed out? the whole blow up with meghan markle - get fleshed out? the whole blow up with meghan markle and - get fleshed out? the whole blow up with meghan markle and the l up with meghan markle and the free—speech debate. in the world. it was big in the uk though. and we happen to be in the uk and people watched it all go down. and a new network and i think if i was not available, it was worth having to go and they had to get me and as has been well documented, as soon as rupert came knocking with this company with the global tentacles it has the ability for me to do columns, to do books, crime documentaries. and it was an irresistible chance to get back to work for what i love doing. i'm sure you negotiated hard.

and as you sit down with rupert murdoch at a table and say i'll take this much for doing this, or if you do this, take a bit more? orwhere or if you do this, take a bit more? or where your lawyers doing that? i more? or where your lawyers doing that?— doing that? i had lawyers actina doing that? i had lawyers acting on _ doing that? i had lawyers acting on my _ doing that? i had lawyers acting on my behalf. - doing that? i had lawyers acting on my behalf. he i doing that? i had lawyers i acting on my behalf. he had doing that? i had lawyers - acting on my behalf. he had a few conversations and i think we're basically an agreement at the of show that i was proposing would do very little of what he wanted for the wider network on talk tv. it was a show that defendants free—speech and all the colours of democracy and a time where society is under more threat to free speech from freedom of expression that i've known in my lifetime. expression that i've known in my lifetime-— expression that i've known in my lifetime. you've been very critical of _ my lifetime. you've been very critical of the _ my lifetime. you've been very critical of the way _ my lifetime. you've been very critical of the way you've - my lifetime. you've been very critical of the way you've had l critical of the way you've had to leave itv but before that, before that blew up as you call it, did you have any pressure from itv previous to that famous will you thought you cannot say which wanted to say? you know, the sadness for me about it other than that i was loving during the show and breaking ratings records front

right and centre and we finally beat the bbc which they told me was a hill we would never climb and ifelt was a hill we would never climb and i felt the show is on fire and i felt the show is on fire and doing exactly what we set out to do and me leading with very strident opinions as my co—presenter having her strong opinions and creating a natural debate about it whatever the issues may be. the sad thing is itv it always been unbelievably strong and protecting my right to express my honestly how it opinions right to the end. it's only, they lost their bottle. they say they defended you vigorously and there's no way we would be absolutelyjust endorsing the champion of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. 50. freedom of speech and freedom of expression.— of expression. so, why am i doinu of expression. so, why am i doing another _ of expression. so, why am i doing another show - of expression. so, why am i doing another show than? l of expression. so, why am i doing another show than? i | doing another show than? i chose to leave because, they didn't tell me this of the time, turned out meghan markle had written to the same night before before i was invited to apologise and leave, demanding my head on a plate. i was

taught either you issue a public apology for effectively disbelieving meghan markle because i disbelieved what she had told oprah winfrey, or add to give up the show which i loved. so, if they want to try to play semantics about this, let me be very clear, that is what happened. and what they did not tell me and what is interesting to me about the general debate, they didn't tell me that meghan markle had personally contacted and i believe what i was told, use phrases like we are both women and we are both mothers. as of thatis and we are both mothers. as of that is something to do with it. if that the way that i was handled at the end was a shame, given how supportive itv had previously been stopped by the did not want you to leave and they said they defended director free—speech. they said they defended directorfree—speech. but they said they defended director free—speech. but they didn't. if they defended my right to free speech, and i would not have been asked to apologise leave myjob. they then later came back and defended my right to free

speech. defended my right to free seech. �* . ., defended my right to free seech. �* ., speech. but ofcom said about ou not speech. but ofcom said about you not believing _ speech. but ofcom said about you not believing that - speech. but ofcom said about| you not believing that meghan markle had suicidal thoughts, it is apparent disregard for the seriousness of anyone expressing suicidal thoughts, we also heard from the charity mind saying they are concerned about when people need to share this, they need to be treated with respect and empathy. and they believe you did not treat meghan markle with respect in this endeavour. i meghan markle with respect in this endeavour.— this endeavour. i 'ust did not find a very h this endeavour. ijust did not find a very credible - this endeavour. ijust did not find a very credible and - this endeavour. ijust did not find a very credible and on i this endeavour. ijust did not. find a very credible and on the show, if she claimed she went to two senior members of the royal household and told them that she was suicidal and they said as she put it, she cannot get any help because of the bed for the brand, let's have the names of those people and they should be fired. but here we are a year later there is a shred of evidence to support that north their shred of evidence to support the. you

could've expressed _ evidence to support the. you could've expressed doubts about meghan markle in a way that was more respectful of the broad aspect of people having suicidal thoughts. which ofcom in leading a mental health charities say that they're concerned about. i charities say that they're concerned about.- charities say that they're concerned about. i am entitled to my opinion _ concerned about. i am entitled to my opinion i _ concerned about. i am entitled to my opinion i have _ concerned about. i am entitled to my opinion i have no - concerned about. i am entitled to my opinion i have no desire| to my opinion i have no desire to my opinion i have no desire to diminish the importance of things like serious mental health or racism or any other issues that she touched on in the oprah interview. but as a journalist, every instinct to me was is a true? is which she's saying true. and i think pretty quickly that it was not true. if she was to produce evidence that supports allegations and we're still waiting, i may revise my position and i may be more sensitive. but i'm afraid that when i watched it, i thought she was being an actress spinning yarn after yarn to cause enormous damage to the royal family cause enormous damage to the royalfamily and an cause enormous damage to the royal family and an institution of the monarchy and i was going

to have it. of the monarchy and i was going to have it— to have it. and now you have a different show, _ to have it. and now you have a different show, you _ to have it. and now you have a different show, you are - to have it. and now you have a different show, you are on - different show, you are on rupert murdoch's talk tv. you're rehearsing it at the moment. and i noticed earlier that you said it's too un—canceled those who have been cancelled. who is coming on, who cannot get into the media elsewhere? i who cannot get into the media elsewhere?— who cannot get into the media elsewhere? i think it's more an issue for me. _ elsewhere? i think it's more an issue for me, the _ elsewhere? i think it's more an issue for me, the council - issue for me, the council culture issue is not about. who are ou culture issue is not about. who are you getting _ culture issue is not about. who are you getting on _ culture issue is not about. who are you getting on michelle i'm not going to tell you my guests are. is failing to get access to high—profile media that you would like to have in your programme? i would like to have in your programme?— would like to have in your programme? would like to have in your roaramme? ., ., ., programme? i would love to get jk programme? i would love to get jk rowling _ programme? i would love to get jk rowling on. _ programme? i would love to get jk rowling on, for _ programme? i would love to get jk rowling on, for example, - programme? i would love to get jk rowling on, for example, the| jk rowling on, for example, the author who has been appallingly vilified and there's been a massive attempt to cancel and it's been unsuccessful because she's extremely wealthy and can look after herself but the abuse that is been given out to herfor abuse that is been given out to her for defending women's rights has been a complete disgrace. i would love to get jk disgrace. i would love to get jk rowling on stop by you're

actually suggesting thatjk rowling and the representative contacted a range of high—profile media in the uk and elsewhere that this high—profile media. she had lunch in the river cafe with a bunch of women, many of whom have been cancelled, university professors, authors and so on in some case. professors, authors and so on in some case-— in some case. the one you're talkin: in some case. the one you're talking about _ in some case. the one you're talking about is _ in some case. the one you're talking about is kathleen - in some case. the one you're. talking about is kathleen stark and we can discuss how she was treated at a university in context of the media. that's the wrong — context of the media. that's the wrong context. - context of the media. that's the wrong context. but - context of the media. that'sj the wrong context. but were context of the media. that's i the wrong context. but were on the wrong context. but were on the media — the wrong context. but were on the media shows. _ the wrong context. but were on the media shows. it's _ the wrong context. but were on the media shows. it's not - the wrong context. but were onj the media shows. it's not about whether there _ the media shows. it's not about whether there cancelled - the media shows. it's not about whether there cancelled for - whether there cancelled for talking in interviews about what happened to her, it's about two people like this lose theirjobs for having honestly held opinions it is not right in a democratic society and the answer is yes. and is well as jk answer is yes. and is well as jk rowling is able to sustain the brush, we have to ask ourselves, is this actually what we want in a democracy? to want to see professors who hold on his views which in my view were not remotely contentious to be driven out of theirjobs

ljy to be driven out of theirjobs by bunch of students? we to be driven out of their “obs by bunch of students? we know there are limits _ by bunch of students? we know there are limits to _ by bunch of students? we know there are limits to free - by bunch of students? we know there are limits to free speech | there are limits to free speech in any society, and in a court of yours, you should be ashamed of yours, you should be ashamed of being cancelled for having an opinion on the were genuinely spewing hateful bigot and i am interested in your programme, where's the line drawn? you have those who say that at seasons covid—i9 do not work? that at seasons covid-19 do not work? , that at seasons covid-19 do not work?- why? _ that at seasons covid-19 do not work?- why?— work? yes. why? i think that viewpoint _ work? yes. why? i think that viewpoint is _ work? yes. why? i think that viewpoint is extremely - viewpoint is extremely dangerous and want to expose some of the facts and these people, there are a lot of people, there are a lot of people who think this end they have been giving a lot of nonsense on the internet, i would let them set out their stool, tell me where they've heard this might be believe this and then damn them with facts. i think if you let these kinds of debates operate purely online, that's where the trouble starts. i do believe in shining a light on some of the views like that. but i get

somebody on who preaches rachel hatred towards people and wants to cause violent conduct towards any minority groups, no, i wouldn't. towards any minority groups, no, iwouldn't. there towards any minority groups, no, i wouldn't. there are obvious limitations were free—speech leads in america which the strongest free—speech and you cannot run to theatres and you cannot run to theatres and shot fire. there are logical limits to this. let's look at the _ logical limits to this. let's look at the drug _ logical limits to this. let'sl look at the drug fibronectin which will all be very well aware of. achievement for covid—i9 despite not being any mass studies to back that up. she put someone on air to challenge them on that? absolutely. joe rogan did that on his show are interested. in talking and it was a very interesting debate about which of these theories which have huge followings now run the world during the pandemic, which of them have any merit or not. that which of them have any merit or not. �* ., ,., ., , which of them have any merit or not. �* ., ., , , not. at what point does become an inch tight _ not. at what point does become an inch tight and _ not. at what point does become an inch tight and act _ not. at what point does become an inch tight and act which - not. at what point does become an inch tight and act which a - an inch tight and act which a lot of people would criticise the bbc for refusing to ever go down these roads in the debate.

because they believe they have the truth and having on the pandemic that china scientists change their mind about the efficacy of masks, the ability of vaccines, the ability of vaccines. and i've changed my opinion of the coronavirus many times during this pandemic. and times during this pandemic. and joe roan times during this pandemic. and joe rogan and — times during this pandemic. and joe rogan and the misinformation of covid—i9 or more broadly, if those pieces of information that are not factually true or given a platform and are not adequately challenge, they didn'tjust get the platform without any of the downside. , , ., downside. yes, but i intend to challenge _ downside. yes, but i intend to challenge them _ downside. yes, but i intend to challenge them from - downside. yes, but i intend to challenge them from the - challenge them from the perspective of fact and truth. it's also going to be on sky news australian fox nation, streaming and sister networks of fox news. you think sky news australian fox news always counter claims, theories? you would have — counter claims, theories? you would have to _ counter claims, theories? you would have to ask— counter claims, theories? ym. would have to ask them. counter claims, theories? you would have to ask them. your| would have to ask them. your show was _ would have to ask them. your show was about _ would have to ask them. your show was about to _ would have to ask them. your show was about to be - would have to ask them. your

show was about to be on - would have to ask them. your i show was about to be on there. i am responsible for my show and its output and i feel no pressure of my various employers to have any stats about anything. i can only speak on my show. it will be like you defending every sure the bbc are ever—present of the bbc. as a ridiculous thing for me to expect you to do. but all of them, and my opinion, have a right to their opinions and it's right that people like you and others challenge those opinions. and others challenge those opinions-— and others challenge those oinions. ., ., ~ ., opinions. you talked about the importance _ opinions. you talked about the importance of— opinions. you talked about the importance of democracy - opinions. you talked about the importance of democracy in . opinions. you talked about the importance of democracy in itsj importance of democracy in its own way, upholding certain values. but doesn't democracy would rest on us all having facts or having good information? on fox nation where your programme is going to be streamed, tucker carlson also is a programme, which floated the idea that the capital was an insidejob capital was an inside job organised capital was an insidejob organised by the fbi, by police insiders. no evidence was offered, is that not unhealthy?

i do not agree with them on that. �* , ., ., that. but when you get to the oint that. but when you get to the point where _ that. but when you get to the point where you _ that. but when you get to the point where you deal- point where you deal uncomfortable with this? i could say to you, are you responsible or accountable for everything that any one of your colleagues here says? i don't think you are. it's one of the most highly rated show, i like the show, i like him i agree about 70% of the stuff he says, but i disagree with him about 25%. last time i checked, that's fine. democracy, you're allowed to not agree with the people you work with and i'm sure tucker, he and i have had spirited debates about gun control in america, for example. he has a very strong view about guns, i have a very strong equally different view about guns. but i can, to say that i can only work somewhere that i can only work somewhere that i can only work somewhere that i agree with every view espoused by people, my point would be that's exactly what my she was going to be tackling.

coming back to my point, what i want to understand is that you should not go, i'm thinking when is suggesting that. would your positioning is that your programme is a part of a reassertion of a democratic society should have. free—speech and that you're going to work particularly with reference to fox news, with the network with a long track record of saying things that are not rooted in fact. i think, why does that make you feel... ? , ., think, why does that make you feel- -- ?_ feel... ? does that make you eruall feel... ? does that make you equally uncomfortable - feel... ? does that make you equally uncomfortable with l feel... ? does that make you l equally uncomfortable with the stuff i've done with cnn? for example, russian collusion was like i could throw back and see cnn is the bbc of the states in many ways. it's in network that's is anything they say must be truthful and factual but for two years, they've spawned a whole web of baloney about donald trump being in cahoots with the russians to fix the 2016 election that turned out to be nonsense. i

understand why they went down that road, think they were chasing ratings, buti that road, think they were chasing ratings, but i look at that and i think, i didn't support that either. i thought i was wrong. support that either. i thought i was wrong-— support that either. i thought i was wrong. you're not going to work for— i was wrong. you're not going to work for cnn,. _ i was wrong. you're not going to work for cnn,. i _ i was wrong. you're not going to work for cnn,. i did - i was wrong. you're not going to work for cnn,. i did work. to work for cnn,. i did work for cnn and _ to work for cnn,. i did work for cnn and all— to work for cnn,. i did work for cnn and all these - to work for cnn,. i did work. for cnn and all these networks get things wrong and have anchors and presenters who say things that i do not agree with. no that fox expects me to go and with my slightly liberal tendencies and suddenly be a hard—core right wing conservative. hard-core right wing conservative.- hard-core right wing conservative. ., ~ , ,, conservative. you keep flipping from talking — conservative. you keep flipping from talking about _ conservative. you keep flipping from talking about facts - conservative. you keep flipping from talking about facts to - from talking about facts to talking about opinions, is there no dividing line for you? everyone is entitled to an opinion. but they're not entitled to is to invent facts. that is my point. that somebody be defending on my show. james murdoch, rupert _ be defending on my show. james murdoch, rupert murdoch's - be defending on my show. james murdoch, rupert murdoch's sun l murdoch, rupert murdoch's sun not long after you decide to leave the business and i think a great news organisations mission should be to introduce fact to disperse doubt. not to

so doubt to obscure fact. clearly, he so doubt to obscure fact. clearly. he— so doubt to obscure fact. clearly, he he is entitled to his opinion. _ clearly, he he is entitled to his opinion. but _ clearly, he he is entitled to his opinion. but you - clearly, he he is entitled to his opinion. but you don't l his opinion. but you don't share those _ his opinion. but you don't share those feelings. - his opinion. but you don't share those feelings. i . his opinion. but you don't i share those feelings. i don't share those feelings. i don't share your _ share those feelings. i don't share your concerns - share those feelings. i don't share your concerns about l share those feelings. i don't| share your concerns about it, no. i'm very happy to be working with fox nations. i'm pretty happy that that sky to be on every night america but nobody in foxes at a single conversation with me to try to tell me what i should be putting on my show what opinions i should be having. in fact, quite the opposite. i spend a week in america ten days ago and i went on nine functions and we can express my honestly how it opinions the entire time and they lapped it up. no pressure to be conservative right wing and there was not a pressure for me to play you're all the devil because i don't believe that. and i don't think that, i like the murdoch some i was laid rupert murdoch, i admired him as a swashbuckling incredibly tough media visionary. you

don't hear much about him but the bbc has its own problems. as much a i can put your halos on and say peers, how can you work for these ghastly people? i would run the bbc sometimes and think martin bashir... i’m and think martin bashir. .. i'm not coming — and think martin bashir. .. i'm not coming with _ and think martin bashir... i'm not coming with halos, and understand.— not coming with halos, and understand. ., ., _, understand. you are coming here with a halo _ understand. you are coming here with a halo just _ understand. you are coming here with a halo just a _ understand. you are coming here with a halo just a little _ understand. you are coming here with a halo just a little bit. - with a halo just a little bit. look, we are the bbc, you're going to work with people who don't ever kind of standards. when i went to fox last week, that the standards are pretty high as kind of happy to work there stop what i'm asking the question, and attended with the right answers.— right answers. they're stepping into the streaming _ right answers. they're stepping into the streaming area - right answers. they're stepping | into the streaming area because the original business model around 2a hour cable news is under pressure, not least is president trump left the white house. ., ., ., house. thereunder a lot more pressure _ house. thereunder a lot more pressure if — house. thereunder a lot more pressure if you're _ house. thereunder a lot more pressure if you're on - house. thereunder a lot more pressure if you're on cnn - house. thereunder a lot more pressure if you're on cnn or l pressure if you're on cnn or msnbc who put all their money on trump bashing and 99% of

their programming was trump bashing. which having watch cnn not do that when it was very nonpartisan and non—biased in its coverage and coverage of effort that is what its business model should be, they went into full on trump bashing and got even hysterical about and got even hysterical about an effort that is killing the golden goose and i see the ratings of cnn really going to the floor where his conversely, the floor where his conversely, the readings for fox news are gigantic by comparison. reminds me of monies to run the mirror, there's always discharged we are are you doing this for and circulations. it is truly my job, yourjob is to serve people who want to listen to bbc and have a licence fee for the privilege. but your business model will that be reviewed as we go forward. what reviewed as we go forward. what ou think reviewed as we go forward. what you think of _ reviewed as we go forward. what you think of the _ reviewed as we go forward. what you think of the bbc _ reviewed as we go forward. what you think of the bbc business model? i you think of the bbc business model? ., �* ~' �* , model? i don't think it's sustainable. _ model? i don't think it's sustainable. what - model? i don't think it's sustainable. what you l model? i don't think it'sl sustainable. what you do model? i don't think it's -

sustainable. what you do with the over 75 so the total despair and i the over 75 so the total despairand i said the over 75 so the total despair and i said on good morning britain regularly and i thought it was a betrayal of the pensioners in this country. and decide when to get it for me because i make your support of the bbc and they can produce amazing programming i recently watched jeremy bowens reporting on ukraine and is a good friend of mine and they are great. clive my re—astounding. brilliant journalism clive my re—astounding. brilliantjournalism and the brilliant journalism and the bbc brilliantjournalism and the bbc does his very best as it is a cnn semi or colleagues risking their lives to bring amazing reports to people. that is these great corporations of the best, but can the bbc continue to charge people my kids age,, are they going to pay a licence fee when they already make their own personal choice about whether to pay a fee for netflix and amazon prime, whatever it may be? i don't think that is sustainable. the bbc may eventually have to go down that road? flit

eventually have to go down that road? ., ., , _ | road? of voluntary payment? i don't think— road? of voluntary payment? i don't think you _ road? of voluntary payment? i don't think you be _ road? of voluntary payment? i don't think you be the - road? of voluntary payment? i don't think you be the end - road? of voluntary payment? i don't think you be the end of. don't think you be the end of the bbc, the bbc seem to think. you just have to give more competitive and stop relying on people being compelled to pay for a licence fee when we are now in a completely different world. b. now in a completely different world. �* ' , , ., world. a different type of business _ world. a different type of business model- world. a different type of business model here - world. a different type of business model here in l world. a different type of. business model here in the world. a different type of- business model here in the uk as opposed to the us. jeff reservations the style they went in on donald trump. big mistake as — went in on donald trump. egg mistake as the ratings went in on donald trump. e r mistake as the ratings now show. i mistake as the ratings now show. ., g, , g, . show. i wonder how you reflect on ou show. i wonder how you reflect on you handle _ show. i wonder how you reflect on you handle donald - show. i wonder how you reflect on you handle donald trump i on you handle donald trump because he had a series of scoops, very high—profile interviews but you look back at those, and you know some of the things that donald trump did later in his presidency around covid—19, orthe later in his presidency around covid—19, or the election result. covid-19, or the election result. ., g, ., , g, result. no one was more critical of _ result. no one was more critical of me _ result. no one was more critical of me of- result. no one was more critical of me of donald l result. no one was more - critical of me of donald trump and covid—19 in the election denialjanuary six. if you go back and read the columns are road, they were incendiary columns attacking him head on and directly. and the interviews, i did not. iwould say to people, go back to watch them in full. simply for people

tojoin twitter about them in full. simply for people to join twitter about these interviews if i didn't take a club into the room and smash him round the head for half an hour, it was and is going to be softball. i hour, it was and is going to be softball. . . , hour, it was and is going to be softball. . g, , ., softball. i challenge trump a lot in those _ softball. i challenge trump a lot in those interviews. - softball. i challenge trump a j lot in those interviews. much more than the narrative has been allowed to say.- more than the narrative has been allowed to say. that being said, he been allowed to say. that being said. he was — been allowed to say. that being said, he was a _ been allowed to say. that being said, he was a friend _ been allowed to say. that being said, he was a friend of mine i said, he was a friend of mine and i've known them since 2008, i was on his celebrity apprenticeship. i've gone back many times as boardroom adviser and i knew him and his family. this man who became an incredibly divisive president of the united states. he gave me was to park the friendship and do an interview like i would do with any bias. i think i did that. i think i did that. the point i'm trying to make here is your approach that is you would with any world leader and you treated him like a normal politician.- and you treated him like a normal politician. and give them a harder— normal politician. and give them a harder time - normal politician. and give them a harder time than i normal politician. and give i them a harder time than i've seen the bbcjournalists give other presidents. you go back

and watch the obama interviews, look at those! that's what i would say in return.- look at those! that's what i would say in return. you don't know what _ would say in return. you don't know what i'm _ would say in return. you don't know what i'm going - would say in return. you don't know what i'm going to i would say in return. you don't know what i'm going to say. i know what i'm going to say. let's try this. the way that trump spoke about covid—19 and the fact that he did not accept defeat in the election were not out of the blue, they were completely in line with how he behaved in the campaign, they are completely in line with how he behaved in the early years of his presidency and yet you treated him like a normal politician. i treated him like a normal politician.— treated him like a normal politician. i wrote over 120 columns — politician. i wrote over 120 columns about _ politician. i wrote over 120 columns about donald i politician. i wrote over 120 i columns about donald trump if the family goes back and reads them stop ijust of known donald trump for 12 years and generally like him. why did you feel warmly towards a man whatever he spoken with great prejudice during the campaign, whatever is shown as scant regard during the campaign and his presidency and in many different ways, appeared to be undermining some of the tenets of american democracy?- of american democracy? you're fallin: of american democracy? you're falling into _ of american democracy? you're falling into the _ of american democracy? you're falling into the slight _

of american democracy? you're falling into the slight trap i of american democracy? you're falling into the slight trap of i falling into the slight trap of being trump is the devil. i’m being trump is the devil. i'm not saying — being trump is the devil. i'm not saying donald trump is the devil? i not saying donald trump is the devil? ., ., . , ., devil? i wrote articles about him and i — devil? i wrote articles about him and i counted. - devil? i wrote articles about| him and i counted. after our positive and have critical, i thought i was a fair analysis and assessment until his last year of the presidency. go back to the start of 2020, he was heading for a comfortable reelection. a lot of things that he did on twitter which a lot of it was ludicrous. haifa lot of it was ludicrous. how can, lot of it was ludicrous. how can. what _ lot of it was ludicrous. how can, what they _ lot of it was ludicrous. how can, what they say - lot of it was ludicrous. how can, what they say is i lot of it was ludicrous. how can, what they say is a i lot of it was ludicrous. how. can, what they say is a great part of who they are. let can, what they say is a great part of who they are.- part of who they are. let me explain- _ part of who they are. let me explain- if — part of who they are. let me explain. if you _ part of who they are. let me explain. if you park - part of who they are. let me explain. if you park the i explain. if you park the twitter rhetoric which was polarising and you either loved or hated it, i would argue that we would get the exception of the final year, where i thought he was a catastrophe and covid—19, i thought he showed no empathy over the george floyd murder which i thought was disgraceful and his refusal to accept the election was

disgraced in the gym with six cabinet riots had consequences of that behaviour. what you're asking me to do is guess what was going to happen. i'm saying that i did not think of the first three years donald trump was either the devil or the saviour that people like to think he was.— saviour that people like to think he was. ., ., ., ,, ., think he was. you are making a show for uk — think he was. you are making a show for uk audiences - think he was. you are making a show for uk audiences in uk i show for uk audiences in uk audiences and australian audiences, they do not alter by same thing. that's all care about the same thing stop till everyone is fascinated by trump. there is lots of stories thatis trump. there is lots of stories that is written around the world. i that is written around the world. ~ world. i think twitter in particular— world. i think twitter in particular has _ world. i think twitter in particular has made i world. i think twitter in j particular has made the world. i think twitter in i particular has made the world world. i think twitter in - particular has made the world a small place in terms of debate. you the trending topics almost the same in every country. every day, i look at the stuff in the news and i think that would resonate all around the world. as things to do now, whether it is ukraine, whether it is megan and harry's antics. whether it is donald trump, whether it's the health ofjoe

biden, all of these things i think working all of these countries.— think working all of these countries. �* g, , , g, countries. and what is your definition _ countries. and what is your definition of _ countries. and what is your definition of success i countries. and what is your definition of success if i countries. and what is your definition of success if he l definition of success if he came back on the media show in orfour years time? came back on the media show in orfouryears time? i’m came back on the media show in or four years time?— or four years time? i'm still on there- — or four years time? i'm still on there. yes? _ or four years time? i'm still on there. yes? yes. - or four years time? i'm still on there. yes? yes. it's i or four years time? i'm still on there. yes? yes. it's a l or four years time? i'm still i on there. yes? yes. it's a hard thin to on there. yes? yes. it's a hard thing to calculate _ on there. yes? yes. it's a hard thing to calculate what - on there. yes? yes. it's a hard thing to calculate what numbers are present when we go comes going to take time to grow it because of the different calibrations in which their sister on the world. but i think world going to know whether or not we have a hit show on her hands within a few months. if people are tuning in bigger numbers, if we are becoming the centre of debate in three continents, that i feel he left on myjob and will be very exciting. if not, then you'll be back to the beach for a while. i you'll be back to the beach for a while. ., ~' you'll be back to the beach for a while. ., ~ g, , a while. i would like to be watching but _ a while. i would like to be watching but i'm - a while. i would like to be watching but i'm going i a while. i would like to be watching but i'm going to | a while. i would like to be i watching but i'm going to be on air. �* g, watching but i'm going to be on air. �* ., ., watching but i'm going to be on air. �* g, g, , air. i'm going to destroy you. with that, — air. i'm going to destroy you. with that, thank _ air. i'm going to destroy you. with that, thank you - air. i'm going to destroy you. with that, thank you very i air. i'm going to destroy you. i with that, thank you very much indeed.

hello there. at this time of year, wind direction can have quite a significant impact on the weather story. west has been best for the last couple of days. in fact, there was nearly 11t hours of sunshine in argyle and butte, an absolutely glorious story here. just down the road in north wales, well, that was the highest temperature recorded in flintshire with 19 celsius. that's because we were sheltered from a fresh easterly wind coming in off a cool north sea. it dragged in a lot of cloud with it. most of the weather action over the last few days has certainly been across europe where we've seen some hideous weather, wet and windy at times across northern spain and portugal, and that's going to continue for the weekend. for us, though, there will be a lot of cloud, and it's been pushing in off the north sea, and the cloud thick enough for some coastal fog which will linger across the far northeast of scotland. but once again, western areas in scotland, northern ireland, northwest england seeing the best of any sunshine. the cloud will break up

across england and wales, but we could see a rash of showers into south wales and southwest england as we go through the afternoon. yes, it's going to be another breezy day, so on exposed north sea coasts, it will be noticeably cooler. we're likely to see those temperatures perhaps peaking at around 12 or 13 degrees. but in western areas and maybe into the southeast, where we see that cloud break up and more sunshine coming through, 18 degrees, once again, is quite possible. so, there's that low pressure bringing yet more wet weather and significant snow across the alps in europe. at the same time, we're under this influence of high pressure, but there'll be plenty of isobars squeezed together, so a significant breeze yet again on sunday. that may well help to break up the cloud a little further on sunday, but it will continue to drag in a lot of low cloud and sea fog across the northern isles and far northeast of scotland. 9—11 degrees here, but with more sunshine and fewer showers, 18, once again, not out of the question. then, as we head into next week, the isobars will open up a little, but we contract that wind direction to more of a northeasterly, a cooler source if anything. so, yes, potentially lighter

winds, but that's going to drag in a little more in the way of cool air in comparison to of late. so, we keep the theme dry to close out the month of april, but noticeably cooler than we've seen over comparison to of late. so, we keep the theme dry to close out the month of april, but noticeably cooler than we've seen over the last couple of days. take care.

this is bbc news — i'm chris rogers. our top stories: the un describes the war in ukraine as a horror story of violations against civilians, and says there's growing evidence of possible war crimes. the united nations secretary—general says he will visit president putin in moscow on tuesday. it's the final stretch in a tight french presidential race for marine le pen and emmanuel macron. a 45—year—old german man, is understood to have been declared an official suspect in the disappearance of madeleine mccann. and, art in the shadow of war. the ukrainian entries at this year's venice biennale.