this is bbc news. i'm martine croxall and these are the headlines... turkish police issue more than a hundred arrest warrants as part of an investigation into poor building standards after this week's devastating earthquakes. it comes as the number of people who have died since monday rises to more than 28,000 in turkey and syria. defying the odds — a ten—year—old girl is pulled out alive from under the rubble of a collapsed building in turkey after 147 hours. a us fighterjet has shot down a mystery object flying over canada's airspace making it the third one to be taken out over north america in the last week. bbc chairman richard sharp is accused of making "significant errors ofjudgement" by mps for not

declaring his involvement in helping britain's former prime minister, borisjohnson, secure a loan. thousands of people in new zealand are left without power as parts of the country endure the start of a severe storm with warnings of more destruction to come. you're watching bbc news. now it's time for political thinking with nick robinson hello and welcome to political thinking. the row about how and why a rapist called adam ended up in a women's prison has shone a spotlight on a debate which in truth, has been raging notjust for months, but for years. at the centre of that debate is the charity and campaigning organisation stonewall. my guest on political thinking this

week is the new chair of stonewall. he's iain anderson and he's got a cv that might surprise you. he's a lifelong conservative. he went to school with michael gove in aberdeen and he ended up running a leadership campaign for ken clarke. he's also a westminster insider who's operated behind the scenes at very high level with ministers of all political parties. he set up and he now runs one of the largest lobbying firms in britain — cicero. he now fears that we are entering an american—style culture war and we might in britain be going back to the future in a way that makes him, as a gay man, deeply uncomfortable. iain anderson, welcome to political thinking. thanks, nick. good to be with you. now, after years of operating behind the scenes in westminster, you and i have come across each other over decades

why on earth did you want to walk into this minefield? well, firstly, you're making me feel very old. upfront. yeah. i've been doing this for a long time. quite simply, stonewall changed my life. the raison d'etre for the creation of stonewall was when a government was passing a piece of legislation, a tory government was passing a piece of legislation, which polled really well. you said it. it was called section 28. what did it do? it banned the promotion of, as i think i remember, pretend family relationships in school. my life is not a pretend relationship. and stonewall has gone on to not just help repeal that legislation, but allow lgbtq+ people to thrive in society. so i'm thrilled to take this on. it's challenging. you said it, but it's

important work. but for you, therefore this organisation you now chair took you — and we'll discuss this journey in a few minutes�* time — from being a young man scared to be out as a gay... absolutely right. ..to someone who is now married. to someone who has equal rights. absolutely. and i'm also married to a raving labour supporter, too, so it's all very balanced, you know? yeah. i mean, for the early parts of my life, i was not out. i didn't come out to my parents until i was in my early 30s. there will be lots of people listening and watching to this that identify with that story. there will also be a whole number of younger people, thank goodness, that think, "wow, that feels like ancient h isto ry".

but, sadly, i'm seeing some of the notes of what i and countless others experienced in the past coming back to, you know, question, again, whether or not, actually, you can even be an lgbtq person. now, there's quite a lot to do to defend our community and, indeed, go beyond that, to actually make this country, once again, a world leaderfor human rights. i want to start with what your approach is. because you caught people's eye, you caught their ear when you appeared on a television sofa, laura kuenssberg, on a sunday morning and you said, i want a conversation, i want a big tent, was the phrase you used. and a day later, you seemed to pack up your tent! you said yesterday i spoke about a big tent for lgbtq rights. for me, that means a real conversation, not a conversation, i noticed, a real conversation with people who share values. well, that isn't

a conversation, is it? that's basically chatting to people who already agree with you rather than having a conversation with people who disagree with you. 0k, what i said as well to laura and i've been saying a lot since is it's all very, very quick to hit twitter. and i think this is... we will maybe unpack a little bit more of this in our conversation today, you know, people just hit twitter rather than actually wanting to sit down and have, you know, in my mind, a real engagement. and i think this is the problem right now. people are going for clicks. people are creating a click bait around people's lives rather than actually wanting to sit down and sort things out. let's go back to you before we do the debate and the argument, the philosophy, if you like, underlying this. so, you have those memories. did you fear for yourself? as a young man, growing up at school, who didn't — let's jump to the end of the story as it were, didn't come out publicly in

language which, as you say, seems almost alien to people of a certain age but at the time, we know what we meant, didn't publicly say, "i'm homosexual", for years. were you fearful of the consequences of being a gay young man? yes, i was. i was fearful about what the opportunities would be for me in society. i was fearful about the reaction from my family, from my friends. quite what it would mean for the rest of my life. even your parents you didn't tell for some time. i say "even", maybe they were the most difficult people to tell! well, the conversation i had with both my mum and my dad in my early 30s was probably one of the most profound conversations of my entire life. i went for a walk with my dad, because that's the way we usually did stuff. i sat down and had a snack with my mum. and they were instantly... i don't know what i was worrying about, really.

they were instantly loving and generous and my father spoke at our civil partnership and that goes and remains, for me, the most... one of the most important and profound moments of my life. so, in that sense, what drives you now is that desire for people who transition... who don't believe that gender is split very simply, to have the comfort you now feel but you didn't feel all those years ago. i see, as i say, sadly, some of the words that are being used about trans people right now create an echo for the kind of things i heard 20, 30 years ago. do you think there are people who wish to fight what we now call a culture war? i think there's definitely people that want to fight a culture war. and are very well funded to be able to do so.

because, you know, to go with the idea that, you know, when they come for trans people, who are they going to come for next? i think there are people involved in this conversation that don't care about trans rights, don't care about women's rights and actually want to just push back human rights. this brings us to how you bring about change. you see, your life, really, has been in this lobbying business, which is, in many ways, about persuasion. it's about understanding how to bring people with you. are there lessons to learn from your life as a lobbyist? what do you advise people about how to bring change about successfully? so, switching gear into that, i called my business cicero. what did cicero do? he was about conversation, yes. he was about being a stout defender of things he believed in. he was about a two—way

dialogue, not, back to my earlier point, conversation on twitter all the time, which sometimes is just not that. so, yes, look, for me, you build the biggest coalition for your thinking and your ideas as you possibly can. and, again, now in this stonewall chair, that's what i want to try and do. and isn't that what happened really in the story of gay rights? certainly in your adult lifetime. which is, john major, a conservative, it was he who embraced, i think, literally, ian mckellen, the gay actor. yeah. at a historic moment in downing street. to say, look, we got it wrong on clause 28 and begin the slow reform that led to a conservative—led government, david cameron's, bringing in gay marriage. and that was exactly the right thing to do. i just fear right now that the conservative party, and this is

a personal view, to be absolutely clear, this is a personal view, having been a conservative for most of my life, that the conservatives have gone backwards. i mean, look, it's theresa may that promised that there would be an all—inclusive ban on conversion therapy. she promised that five years ago, now, nick. and we are now as i think we are all agreed, we are now running out of time in terms of what's actually doable in this parliment, so, how long do lgbtq+ people in this country have to wait to see a conversion therapy ban actually take place? and yet... there are founders of your organisation, founders of stonewall, proud gay men and women, who fought for gay rights, who say "you no longer speak for us." you assert that there

is a community, and imply that to disagree with that is to, somehow, be other or worse still to be a transphobe, to use an insult that is thrown about. do they make you pause for thought at all? that simon fanshawe, that matthew parris, that others say you are getting this wrong? so, there's a lot out there about that. my approach to this, as i've just been saying to yourself, is ijust see a real echo. nobody really, ifelt, stood up or stood with me in the 1980s. and i think we're better when we stand together. i really do. but they say look, it isn't the same. and i think when you look at the... i mean, i think there is genuinely an lgbt community. i think when you look at the levels of support support across

the piece for lgbtq people, it is very, very evident to me, yes, i've made a choice, but i think it's the right choice. what i think those people would say to you is, look, the parallel isn't exact. in fact, the parallel is wrong, they would argue. you, as a gay man, simply wanted the right to be who you were in public. which, over time, you've secured. in life. yeah. they would say, transitioning can — and let's emphasise the word "can" — be a choice. it can be something that involves serious medical procedures, life—changing surgery, which you can't then change your mind about. and, critically, it can, in certain circumstances, not always, impose on the rights of other people. it can impose on the rights of women. so, they say, this parallel may be emotionally right. you feel you've

got a duty to fight for people, because people didn't fight for you. it's intellectually bogus. well, i disagree with that and i profoundly disagree with that for several reasons. we've got legislation in this country, by which i mean all the uk, you know, we've clearly been debating the difference between scotland and the rest of the uk. we've got equalities legislation. it specifically enshrines women's rights and protections and safe spaces in that legislation. i mean, that's come up in the latest, if i

can use a good old scottish word — stooshie — about this whole conversation. we got to a place over a decade ago now where rights for those with what are called protected characteristics and all lgbtq+ people i think fall into that space have protections. i can'tjust understand why we've kind of gone backwards in some of this conversation over the last 12, 13 yea rs. well, because a man with a penis was sent to a women's prison. in an era in which you're telling me that there are rights to safe spaces. it happened. and stonewall said it wouldn't happen. yeah, and this individual is a rapist. and the full force of the law should apply to that individual. is he a man or a woman? well, that person committed an offence whilst a man, has transitioned to being a woman. and the scottish prison service, as i believe would happen in england and wales as well, has undertaken a risk assessment pretty quickly and put said individual into a man's prison. but it's not an irrelevant question

to ask is he a man or is he a woman? no, it's not an irrelevant question to ask. this is a transitioning individual. so, is he not a man or a woman? who is now identifying as a woman. but that's describing what he thinks. i'm asking what do you think, is he a man or is he a woman? well, what this person is is a rapist. the reason many people think it matters, even if it was one in 10 million, is it because it's about the principle. the principle at the heart of this complicated row is a simple one. stonewall appears to be asserting that a trans woman is in all circumstances whoever they are, whatever they've done, whatever their genitalia, is a woman legally, forever. so the way in which this

conversation goes is people are saying that what is a biological woman? i think we know what a biological woman is. and stonewall is not saying anything to change that. what it is saying is that we believe that a trans woman is a woman. so in this case the rapist is a woman? what i am not trying to do is convince people of anything other than that. the other example about women's rights is this tabloid story, but with substance behind it, that people who give birth shouldn't be called mothers. they should be called people who give birth. is that really stonewall�*s view of the world? so no. this again gets mischaracterized. what stonewall looks to do is to provide organisations with good practice to

create an inclusive place to work. it is not the law. but is it good practice to stop calling mothers mothers? in some organisations, potentially that's what they might not want to do in terms of the culture they are trying to create and in terms of what has actually worked in other organisations. these are suggestions. these are suggestions to create an inclusive workforce. look, this is about creating a place, creating a culture, where people really can be themselves, that's what i'm after. have you given up on the conservatives to make that sort of change? look, they have said that they plan to make a change. you say they now, because you were a proud conservative.

you've been on the journey for a while, since you are working with ken clark when he ran way back in 1997. it feels like you may be on a journey away from the party you were born into. i think that's a fair comment. as i say, that's a personal comment. i don't say that wearing my day job hat, my gay job hat! that's an iain comment. when i worked with ken clark, and ken clark lost the conservative leadership about 60—40, and i thought, what should i do? i spoke to ken and he said fight. and somebody else said stay in and stick in. i think i probably have come to the end of the road now. i met keir starmer. i think what the country needs right now again personal view is to

restore confidence in the institutions of britain, to get things in public services working again, and yes, to become a leader once again on lgbtq+ rights. so you have taken the decision as a former schoolmate of michael gove�*s who you debated at school. yes, i did, i won the competition. i won the competition. the press and journal competition. he's gone on to great things though, yes. so for you this is quite a big decision for you. it's a huge decision. it's a decision i've kind of agonised about for a long time. but to quote my old mentor, the tories are tired and we need a change.

it's a flippant parallel, so forgive me for it, but is it anything like coming out? to come out not as a conservative as you've always been? but as a supporter now of the labour party? it's been very hard. it's been a process. i spoke to recent cabinet ministerjust a few days ago about what was in my mind and what i was struck by. i had expected them to try and convince me not to cross the bridge. and they didn't. and there come moments in your life, coming out, setting up a business, but there come moments in your life where you just have to stand back and look at what you can

see and the conservative party i see now is not the one that i knew. explain to people who might not understand, why is that a painful process ? you are a highly successful businessman, not ma serving politician. you are happily married. you happen to run this campaigning organisation we are talking about. why would something that somebody would do casually, election, who should i choose this year? why would that be a painful process? i thought about politics all my life. when i was 16, i saw the movie all the president's men, and that was before i even got to university. ijust thought, right, i want to be around politics in some way. i was a journalist for a while. i was a political activist. i worked for some politicians. and people who love politics, who don'tjust casually look at it,

as you approach general election, it's in your dna. i'm not a tribal person, but i've been part of a tribe. so it's hard. now, i've mentioned a couple of times that you're successful and married. it raises the question whether your husband, whether your business partners, haven't said to you, iain, are you mad? you're successful in your 50s. why on earth would you step into this minefield? because i care about it, nick. i care about it. and lots of things kind of come together in this place. you know, we've had in some places today quite a hard conversation. but that does not mean it's not worth doing. and, you know, my dream is to get to a place where we can continue

to advance lgbtq+ rights, see the uk go back up to the top of the tree again, and then all groups in society, all parts of this conversation, can feel that they want everybody to flourish once again. but is calling people who disagree with you transphobes a way to achieve that? so i've never said that. that's not my approach. i'm interested in people that... and i'm interested in that conversation with people that want to make life better for the lgbtq+ community. nicola sturgeon was asked recently she did say that she thought the opponents of her gender reforms were transphobes, were homophobes. she suggested some of them were even racists. that's not my language.

i agree with nicola sturgeon on what she's trying to achieve in terms of creating a more inclusive approach for lg btq+ people. but i disagree with nicola sturgeon on some of the language she might use and personal view, obviously, again, the one thing that's not changed in all this is i'm a very committed unionist. you will know that the way people in our world, this village of westminster we've both occupied in different ways, in different roles, often say the measure of leadership is whether you challenge your own side. you've already said something rather different from what we often see and read on twitter in particular. are you willing, as the chair of stonewall, to stand up to your own side and say, show a bit more respect? respect is everything

that i'm about. respect is, i hope, how people work with me, how i try and work with them. it's a good word, and i think it's a good comment. that is my approach. we might even get that tent open again and you can have some of your critics in it, as well as people who are... well, yeah. iain anderson, chair of stonewall. thank you for coming on political thinking. thank you. when stonewall chose as its chair, someone who was seen in westminster as a smoothie, as a fixer, as a pr man and a lobbyist, some thought the cynics, you might say, that this was just putting a new gloss, a rather more comfortable language on top of stonewall�*s existing positions. 0thers hoped that iain anderson would actually lead stonewall in a new direction, willing

to have the big tent conversation he talked of, but doesn't yet seem quite ready to embrace. the next few months, the next few years, could tell us who was right. thanks for watching. hello, there. it certainly has been a quiet weekend of weather, but on the grey side, and some of that cloud is really quite stubborn to break up. this was ramsgate, kent, a little earlier on, and that's going to be the scene, i suspect, for much of the day. but there are signs that the cloud should start to thin and break, as you can see from moray earlier on. the reason why the cloud might break across scotland and out to the west is there are a few more isobars on the charts, a little bit more of a breeze to punch holes in the cloud.

we are still under the influence of high pressure and, on the whole, we've got mild air, particularly across much of england and wales, so, despite that cloud around, it's relatively mild out there. as you can see, it will continue to linger through much of central and eastern england. favoured spots for sunshine, scotland, northern ireland, northern england and parts of wales. here, there will be more of a breeze, top temperatures of 10 or ii celsius. as we close out sunday, where we've had the clear skies by day, we might keep those clear skies overnight, so favourite spots for lowest temperatures across eastern scotland, north—east england. hopefully too much of a breeze for mist and fog to form, but we can't rule out one or two pockets here and there. but we are going to start off monday morning with yet again that low, grey cloud, but with a stronger southerly wind as we go through the morning, hopefully that cloud should start to retreat back towards the lincolnshire and east yorkshire coastlines, so more sunshine coming through and, as a result, slightly warmer.

we might see 12 or 13 celsius perhaps as a daytime maximum on monday. into tuesday, we will start to see the signs of change, but it's going to be a slow process. the high pressure really firmly ensconced across central europe. weather fronts trying to push in from the atlantic, but i suspect on tuesday it will be outbreaks of cloud and some showery rain into northern ireland and western fringes of scotland for most of the day. elsewhere, dry, settled, sunny and still pleasantly mild, with highs once again of 13 celsius. there will be wetter weather, though, on wednesday. the first frontal system dies off as it moves into england and wales. the second frontal system tucking in behind might bring more outbreaks of rain. but however you look at it, from the middle part of the week, it looks likely that we will start to see some wetter weather. so, there will be outbreaks of rain, chiefly to the north and west, but some of that wet weather will push into the london area as well.

this is bbc news. welcome if you're watching here in the uk or around the globe. i'm martine croxall and these are the latest headlines... the un's aid chief says the international community has failed the people of northwest syria, where thousands of people have died since monday's earthquakes. turkish police issue more than a hundred arrest warrants as part of an investigation into poor building standards after this week's devastating earthquakes. defying the odds, a 10—year—old girl is pulled out alive from under the rubble of a collapsed building in turkey after 147 hours. this is the scene live in southern turkey as emergency teams continue their pain—staking search for survivors as the number of people killed rises to more than 28,000. a us fighterjet has shot down a mystery object flying over canada's airspace making it the third one to be taken out over