you are watching bbc news. coming up, it's newscast. hello it is world book day when we are recording is upset. we had some good costumes to hand. first of all to stay two of the telegraph is calling a lock down files, all of those what messages between matt hancock in the health secretary during the early stages of the covid pandemic between borisjohnson and rishi sunak and other advisers in posters in dominic cummings and

others and basically everyone who had anything to do with covid. the weird do you think that story has got to? weird do you think that story has not to? �* , ., ~' got to? it's not quite i think necessarily _ got to? it's not quite i think necessarily yet _ got to? it's not quite i think necessarily yet at _ got to? it's not quite i think necessarily yet at the - got to? it's not quite i think necessarily yet at the kind l got to? it's not quite i think| necessarily yet at the kind of obvious comparison of the telegraph. generating a lot of news. loads and loads of pick—up and different news organisations but it is not necessarily top story everywhere for days and days on end., but they have shades of stuff to reveal. i went to the headquarters of the telegraph today showing the bunker where they kind of describe this windowless room where about eightjournalists since the turn of the year come over to europe months, sitting in the room not much bigger than this studio, may be than the average bedroom in a house where they are also being behind desktop computers that are not on the internet and that are not on the internet and thatis that are not on the internet and that is when data is. then they are having to look at a link that may

have been shared and one of these whatsapp on the internet. does the data security that is going on. and all of these different groups and all of these different groups and all of these different groups and all of these different strands of stories that are coming out. in all of these different strands of stories that are coming out. in the “ournals stories that are coming out. in the journals of— stories that are coming out. in the journals of the _ stories that are coming out. in the journals of the heart _ stories that are coming out. in the journals of the heart of— stories that are coming out. in the journals of the heart of the - stories that are coming out. in the journals of the heart of the effort. journals of the heart of the effort has worked at a few newspapers but has worked at a few newspapers but has worked on the telegraph on this and crucially worked with matt hancock helping him to write this pandemic diaries book, that is how she got her hands on one do messages. and you have been to speak to her in the bunker. talk messages. and you have been to speak to her in the bunker.— to her in the bunker. talk the timeline of— to her in the bunker. talk the timeline of how _ to her in the bunker. talk the timeline of how you - to her in the bunker. talk the timeline of how you became l to her in the bunker. talk the l timeline of how you became in possession of all of these whatsapp messages because you did team up with matt hancock so when did you first get a hold of the stuff and then talk me through your decision to decide to do more than just right with him but do what you have done with the telegraph. 50 with him but do what you have done with the telegraph.— with the telegraph. so the book ro'ect with the telegraph. so the book preject was _ with the telegraph. so the book project was originally _ with the telegraph. so the book project was originally supposed | with the telegraph. so the book l project was originally supposed to be six _ project was originally supposed to be six months, that is a pretty condensed timeframe to write any books _ condensed timeframe to write any books i_ condensed timeframe to write any books. i have written multiple books, — books. i have written multiple books, six _ books. i have written multiple books, six months is tough. the event _

books, six months is tough. the event that— books, six months is tough. the event that it was extended to about a year~ _ event that it was extended to about a year~ it _ event that it was extended to about a year. it was only really about halfway — a year. it was only really about halfway through that process that i began _ halfway through that process that i began getting these files. frankly i was astonished. i was being given. it this_ was astonished. i was being given. it this a _ was astonished. i was being given. it this a couple of years ago? gh it this a couple of years ago? oh no. it this a couple of years ago? oh n0- we're _ it this a couple of years ago? oh no. we're talk about the summer. it this a couple of years ago? oh - no. we're talk about the summer. so no. we're talk about the summer. sc you no. we're talk about the summer. you are no. we're talk about the summer. sr you are looking at these files and thinking, oh my goodness. 2.3 million words of messages here. 100,000 — million words of messages here. 100,000 or more individual messages in conversations. absolutely no way that i_ in conversations. absolutely no way that i wore — in conversations. absolutely no way that i wore it matt hancock or anyone — that i wore it matt hancock or anyone who works for him could possibly— anyone who works for him could possibly have gone through all of that _ possibly have gone through all of that my— possibly have gone through all of that. my role at that time was to help matt — that. my role at that time was to help matt hancock write the book that he _ help matt hancock write the book that he wanted. it would have to be a true _ that he wanted. it would have to be a true account, of course are not going — a true account, of course are not going to _ a true account, of course are not going to put — a true account, of course are not going to put my name to anything that i_ going to put my name to anything that i thought was false or misleading, but the methodist we could _ misleading, but the methodist we could do— misleading, but the methodist we could do in that timeframe is draw from _ could do in that timeframe is draw from the _ could do in that timeframe is draw from the critical messages that we could _ from the critical messages that we could find — from the critical messages that we could find easily. i want to be fair

to matt _ could find easily. i want to be fair to matt hancock he did lean towards disclosure — to matt hancock he did lean towards disclosure. that was his essential bias _ disclosure. that was his essential bias so _ disclosure. that was his essential bias so we — disclosure. that was his essential bias. so we were able to put an awful— bias. so we were able to put an awful lot — bias. so we were able to put an awful lot of this material in his book — awful lot of this material in his book 0f— awful lot of this material in his book. of course there was enormous amount— book. of course there was enormous amount left— book. of course there was enormous amount left over. and it was only after _ amount left over. and it was only after the — amount left over. and it was only after the book was published, i discharged my responsibility that i began _ discharged my responsibility that i began thinking about whether there was in _ began thinking about whether there was in fact an overwhelming public interest— was in fact an overwhelming public interest in— was in fact an overwhelming public interest in reviewing more. now, he had said publicly that he had given all the material to the public inquiry. i have never asked him what that means. did he give every bit of it, all 2.3 million words? but we now know there is no prospect of anybody seeing any outcome from that anytime soon. you say that he lent towards disclosure. bluntly, when you were writing that book with him, were there things that you saw in these messages that he did not want in that book?

yes. i would challenge anyjournalist worth the name journalist who received a cache of information like this not to think, my goodness, this is extraordinary... so you knew you had struck gold whilst you were still writing the book? that you could write this book and then do all of this? actually, that wasn't the plan. it was an enormous challenge to get the book out. that is a very detailed book and it has a lot of material from those whatsapps in it. and it was exhausting doing it, frankly. to try to do that in parallel with earning your living was extremely tough. i loved it, i don't want to say poor me, but i certainly wasn't thinking about what came after. but you are right, the journalistic instinct is to be thrilled, of course it is. i would challenge any of my colleagues in the industry who had received a cache of material like that to say, oh, well, you know, i will use a bit of it and let's go with what we have chosen for the book and then i willjust kind of,

you know, delete that. that is not what we are here to do asjournalists. if that meant betraying matt hancock, that's fine? well, look... i take that seriously, of course i do. but ultimately, the public interest was overwhelming and it isn't about matt hancock. this is something so much bigger. this isn't about embarrassing individuals or making individual politicians look bad. nor is it, by the way, about me, although lots of people might like to make it so. it is so much bigger than that. it's about the entire country, and if we are going to talk about betrayal, then the way i would see it is the betrayal of every one of us who were let down by the response to the pandemic. my responsibility is to get information to them. when did matt hancock find out about all this? well, matt hancock would have found out about this as the same time as everybody else found out about it, when the telegraph

published the first expose. why not give him a chance to offer a right to reply? well, the reality is that the paper felt that the most important thing was to get this out there. what we did not want is any clever government shenanigans trying to block us from publishing and that is always a real danger with a big expose in which people are going to be somewhat embarrassed or at least made uncomfortable... lawyers intervening because there was a non—disclosure agreement? no, actually there wasn't a non—disclosure agreement. there was a fairly standard terms of agreement between us but it wasn't actually an nba, that is a boring technical point. it isn't actually what would have come into play here. as you know, governments can injunct newspapers from publishing things. i think the telegraph would have had an extraordinarily powerful public interest argument and i think... but there was a risk there, you create a risk there? you feared a risk there? i think absolutely, of course. any big journalistic investigation

into anyone always carries the risk of an injunction. do you ever worry that no one will ever trust you again? no, i don't, because i'm really good at what i do. i do stories in the public interest and i make judgments. and already, in the last 24 hours, i have had people coming to me with tip offs a lot of e—mails from members of the public saying thank you. what about the argument that it isn't really in the public interest? because this is partial, these are whatsapp exchanges, there is a million and one other bits of testimony out there that perhaps, of course we don't even know about and we certainly haven't seen, and that the proper forum for an analysis of that is a public inquiry? nota drip, drip, drip in a newspaper over a couple of weeks. well, we have addressed that, haven't we, about the proper forum? love the idea of a public inquiry. let's do what sweden did and wrap it up. they wrapped theirs up last year and so, yes, in an ideal world, that is the proper forum. i have got no confidence, and that is in no way a slight on the brilliantjudge, an incredibly respected figure.

she has been given the remit, she has not set it up to have no deadline. but you can't have confidence in a public inquiry that has no deadline and a remit that big. so as to the point about this being partial, the telegraph coverage has been very upfront about that. we are not over—claiming for it, it is what it is. where there are bits missing, we acknowledge that, and i would invite anybody who feels that they have other information that would put a different perspective on this, if they are sitting on a bunch of their own whatsapps to say, hang on a minute, you needed this bit of the conversation, bring it on, i would love to hear from you. what about the criticism, we have heard it from matt hancock and others, that this is about pursuing an anti—lockdown agenda. that your world view, if you like, on how the pandemic was handled is well known, perfectly respectable view in the range of the debate, but that is the principal motivation for you? who has a pro—lockdown agenda?

i mean, what is that? is that a thing? you know, what is a pro—lockdown agenda? i was very vocal during the pandemic, as were a number, a small number of other brave people — i don't mean to put myself in the brave category, but it was difficult talking out at the time, it was difficult and challenging the consensus. we know that eminent public health experts, epidemiologists, scientists, were utterly vilified for expressing any dissenting view, for questioning what the government wanted to do. i think that was profoundly wrong. i think that absolutely i want to get to the heart of whether the repeated lockdowns were the right and proportionate response to the pandemic. we now know so much more about the collateral damage. that was obvious to me. it was obvious to a lot of public health experts and scientists. you only have to look, for example, at education,

what we have covered in the telegraph today. over 100,000 children were lost to education forever because of the repeated lockdowns in schools. they dropped off school registers, they never returned. now, better off children will of course bounce back. kids are resilient. but it is a tragic truth that, for some children, and probably quite a significant number, their life opportunities have been permanently damaged. let's talk finally about the process, thejournalistic process about what we are now reading in the daily telegraph. we are at telegraph towers, the headquarters of the daily and sunday telegraph here. i havejust been in the room known as the bunker down the corridor, a windowless room full of computers that are not connected to the internet, i think that's right. yeah, that's right. where the cleaners haven't been in for two months and there is old takeaway forks on the floor and all the rest of it. our audience will be interested in how this has been assembled journalistically. talk us through that.

the process has been extraordinarily energy intensive. the telegraph put an enormous team onto this. and it has been very methodical. you know, when you are doing a project like this, what you don't want is ten journalists or going off in different directions, you know, making notes in different formats and getting excited about different things but not telling each other. so the way this was managed has been utterly meticulous, extraordinarily professional, very formulaic. you know, there was a huge volume of material to go through so that had to be carved up between different whatsapp groups. some of them are very big groups. there is one whatsapp group in particular that arrived in a dump of about 1 million words just in one group. that crashes most normal computers. so it had to be carved up in a certain way. but there were so many checks and balances built into the process. so each journalist involved was asked to check every otherjournalist's work so that it was the case that everything could be coordinated. people would say, actually, i have

spotted this, did you spot that? because the telegraph used their specialists in different areas. so that is isabel oakeshott's view from telegraph towers. what about the views of some of the people who have been caught up in all this? well, matt hancock in particular is very punchy in his response, as you might imagine, not least because of that sense of betrayal. and he says that it is outrageous and that she is pursuing an anti—lockdown agenda, as he puts it, and that it is not in the public interest, as he sees it, because the forum for that, he believes, is the public inquiry but of course we have heard her critique of that process, that sense from her that she thinks it is going to be too long winded. now, today is world book day, as many parents will have experienced, and as i have seen many parents talking about on social media today. so we managed to rope in a real—life author to come and talk to us! it is former children's laureate and broadcaster michael rosen, who is here. hello, michael. hello. so, i am an author specimen for today!

well, i mean, your latest book, getting better, has a lot of medical stuff in it because there is a lot that your recovery from covid, so specimen is almost... quite appropriate! quite an appropriate word, yeah. how are you feeling these days? very good. i am very glad you're on my right hand side because i can't really see with this eye. right. and i can't really hear with that ear but with these cans on it's fine. but they got knocked out micro—bleeds in my brain as a consequence covid. because we have heard so much, haven't we, in the last few years of the classic symptoms and all the rest of it. but that, as a lasting legacy of covid, is really quite something. yes. so, to be technical about it if we are going to medical, so when or if the covid virus gets into the bloodstream, then one of the cells that it attacks is the cells that prevent your blood from clotting, because you should only clot when you are exposed to oxygen.

so if you attack those cells, you being the virus, then you start clotting and so that is why in the very early stages people were dying from heart attacks, strokes, embolisms, aneurysms and so on and further down the line these clots can go down into the capillaries. and so capillaries were bursting and in my case, in my toes as well, so when i woke up after being in an induced coma for 40 days, i looked down at my toes and there were these kind of red blobs because i had lost my toenails and lost the feeling in my toes, as well. tell us about that moment of waking up. i have cheated, actually, because i don't really know anything about it, because i did not want to wake up. i had been in the coma for about 40 days and the medics were getting worried that i would not wake up and also my eyes were dilated, especially the left eye which stays permanently dilated,

and i think they were doing things like clicking their fingers, and i was not reacting. they were getting very worried because somebody who has been in a coma for that long, sometimes people don't wake up, or wake up really damaged. and so professor hugh montgomery, the consultant, had a great idea, he thought he would bring my wife in, emma, so this is during lockdown, of course, so they had to wheel me out of the intensive care ward onto the fourth floor atrium of the whittington hospital overlooking london~ _ emma sat next to me, and i know nothing about this, she held my hand and played recordings of my children, our children and my older ones, in my ear, and apparently i waved my arm, i think when one of them said, "hi, dad," or words to that effect. 0r "wake up, dad." "you have been asleep for a long time, dad." that sort of thing. i waved my arm and according to hugh, when they wheeled me into the lift, i did not stop talking.

so there's a surprise, you are getting a flavour of not stopping talking now. what were you saying? i'm not sure. hugh has not told me but he has said that they were worried that i was brain dead, that is the way he put it, doctors do quite like nailing it, don't they? he said, "we were worried you were brain dead," and i said, "why didn't you tell me at the time?" he said, "well, because we thought you were brain dead." anyway... when you were conscious again and conscious that you were conscious, if you see what i mean, was there a feeling of elation, were you frightened? to tell you the truth, i had no idea what had happened to me because either emma or doctors or nurses told me i had been in intensive care, and excuse my ignorance, but at the time i thought that meant that was somewhere where they cared for me intensively. i did not know it was this place where they, where you sit there, and the chances are that they filled you full of, in their terms, drugs to knock you out,

drugs to paralyse you, and in my case, also intubated with a tube down my throat. ijust thought i had been looked after rather well and i did not know that time had passed. i'm not blaming anybody but it wasn't actually made clear to me, and it was only really i think about two or three months later that i fully realised that because my last memory is of a doctor saying, "will you please sign this piece of paper to put you to sleep?" and i said, "will i wake up?" and he said, "you have got a 50—50 chance." i said, "and if i don't sign?" he said, "zero." so, ithought, "well, i'll probably sign then." at the time, i don't know if i was already high on something they were giving me, but i rememberthinking, "50—50, not so bad." but then i did also have a much sadder thing in my mind, a flash, it was that my son eddie died of meningococcal septicaemia. and that means that the meningitis bacterium invades your body,

and i remember talking to a doctor about it, and i was concerned that he knew that he was ill, that he knew that he was dying, or that he was in pain, so i said this to the doctor and he said no, he was asleep, and also, that the effect of that bacterium in the body meant that he didn't know, he just went into unconsciousness, and he then added, all his body turned to mush inside, because it erodes the membranes around every cell. i actually remember a sort of flash at that very moment when he said that, 50—50, and will i wake up, well, you may or may not, and i thought, if i don't wake up, it won't matter much because i won't know about it and that will be like eddie. and in that split second i thought that. how has it changed your outlook on life, given that it was the toss of a coin, a 50—50 chance, and it worked, it happened, you survived, you are here? over time, is there a reversion to

how things were and revelling in how things were or are you different in how you approach day—to—day life? i think i always believed in seize the day, seize the time, i think i always did believe that. my very clever daughter told me that i'm an optimistic nihilist. and i said, "oh, right, am i?" she said, "yes, you are a nihilist because you don't believe in a deity and you don't believe in the afterlife, and you are optimistic, because you take every day and you make of it what you can." well, i was like that before i got ill and i guess i'm now super seize the day, whatever that would be in latin, "carpe super diem," which would be over—the—top, as well, and it is a bit ott. anyway, yes, yes, i would say that i believe very much, make every day a good day. does it make you think, "gosh, if i can survive these moments, i can survive anything" or does it make you aware of your vulnerability?

yeah, i don't think i'm superman, so it is the other, yes. i'm very aware of my vulnerability. of course, i knew vulnerability, if only through eddie, the fact that i put him to bed and went in in the morning and said, "eddie, eddie, i'mjust going off to work now," and he was dead. so you can't get a more acute sense of vulnerability than that. i was fully aware of that but of course it is slightly different when it is you. a big part of your life has been going into schools and doing children's books have been in the news in a big way in the last few weeks because of the controversy around roald dahl�*s back catalogue and the version of the books that was going to be on the shelves which took out harmful words like fat and horrible and evil and things like that. ugly. yeah.

except, then the publishers decided there is now going to be a compromise and there will be new versions with those words taken out but you can still buy the classic ones with some of the words still in. did they decide or was that the plan right from the start? i have no idea, don't ask me. i'm not that side of the business. i wonder what your hunch is on words like fat and ugly and mad? should they have a place in children's books in 2023? they are punchy words and they are instantly understood words but they are also words that some don't like. i'm not going to be a commissar on this myself. i will be a commissar on me and say that i will avoid them. iwill avoid mad because people have said to me mad is very pejorative, it connects with mental illness. if you say, "you are mad." and of course we do say it in speech, "you must be mad to say that." and we don't really mean anything to do with mental illness. no, but if you put it in a book it sort of fossilises it in a way, and if you say, "this mad woman came in," if you said, "she went mad," maybe that is not quite so bad, but if you say, there was a woman or a man who is mad or a child who is mad, and you think that is also being used

in the playground against people, you mightjust hesitate to put it, so a lot of self—censorship goes on when we write books. you know, again, if you say somebody is ugly, which is one of the words they took out, well, what does that mean? we know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. there is no objective thing called ugliness and these days we do tend to believe that no matter what people look like, they can be beautiful on the inside, all these things. and so you think about these things when you write. and we make mistakes. there are books of mine you can find from the past and somebody could say, "why did you do that?" and i would say, "well, let's change it, then." are they going through your back catalogue? michael laughs i don't think so. there have been re—editions of things where we have changed odd bits and pieces. i think i had one, you will like this, i had a poem aboutjumping up and down on drain covers, and the word i used for that when i was a kid was bonking. bonking on the drains. so we agreed that probably we would take that one out. so the poem, a lovely poem,

i really like it, "we are bonking, we are bonking, we are bonking on the drains." it is not in the latest edition of that book. what is the new word? no, the whole poem came out. michael, what are you reading on this world book day? i am reading a wonderful book called i'm black so you don't have to be. it's by a former colleague of mine, and yours, colin grant, who was the son of two jamaicans, and he is writing about his family. this is a beautiful, wonderful book, and he has used a wonderful device, each person in his family has a separate chapter, so you see the world through the eyes of that person in his family. great book. chris? the power of geography by tim marshall. very on brand. former sky news diplomatic editor, i think he was, foreign affairs editor. i must admit, doing thisjob, i can see how laura k liked a bit of trashy literature at the end of long days because i love

tim marshall but it is a bit heavy going after a 17 hour day. and is geography powerful? i think it is. we are both geographers. oh, well. my brother is a geologist, palaeontologist, so he knows where things are, as well. mine is super on brand because i'm reading an introduction to political philosophy for students and politicians. for a little project i'm working on. you are going to write one yourself? potentially, yeah. stay tuned. makes the power of geography seem like light reading! michael, thank you very much for coming in. thanks for having me. and thank you too for watching and listening and being part of this episode of newscast. we will be back with another one very soon. goodbye. bye.

good evening. it was a cloudy and dull day weather—wise for most of us today, but there were some brighter spells, some sunshine, notably across scotland and also towards the south coast of england — here's gosport, in hampshire. it's quite a mixed picture tomorrow. the further east you are, the more likely you are to see a lot of cloud around, but further west, there will also be some brighter spells at times. and we've still got that feed of cloud coming in from the north sea overnight tonight, a few spots of drizzle always possible, 1—2 coastal showers, as well. further west, this is where we'll see the clearest of the skies — you can see where the blue's tinging in the map, that's where we'll get a widespread frost. temperatures dropping below freezing — so a chilly, locally frosty start to the day. where we keep the cloud, temperatures will remain in low single figures. now over the weekend, our high pressure is pulling away. it'll still be mostly dry, i think, for most areas, but a couple of cold fronts slipping southwards on a northerly wind, and eventually some arctic air.

not too cold yet, though, on saturday. a frost out towards the west — this is where we'll also see the best of the sunshine, western scotland, western england, also western wales. further east, a lot of cloud, a few spots of drizzle from the thickness of the cloud, and some showers moving into mainland scotland, too. temperatures round about the seasonal average, but with a bit of added wind—chill from that northerly. the winds are still fairly light on sunday. there'll be some brighter spells around at times, also a few showers — possibly some of those showers wintry across the hills of scotland and towards north sea—facing coasts, as well. but temperatures will take a bit of a dip on sunday, it will start to feel colder for most areas. but that really cold air filters down from the arctic on sunday night, into the start of next week — and it's just pushing further southwards as the start of the week wears on. now, there's still a lot of uncertainty in the forecast — but what we are sure about is that it will turn colder and there will be some snowfall. but we're unsure still as to the extent of the snowfall — will it reach the south,

and how long the colder air will last? but we've already got localised weather warnings in force for snow and ice across scotland on monday, and for northeast england. most of the showers on monday will fall as rain towards the south, but we could see some of these showers turn wintry, perhaps, on tuesday. there will be a lot of added wind—chill, too, with a bitterly cold northerly wind.

this is bbc news with the headlines... alex murdaugh, the disgraced south carolina lawyer, is sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his son and wife. i sentence you to prison for murdering him for the rest of your natural life. those sentences will run consecutive. a british parliamentary probe into partygate — finds evidence that breaches of covid rules would have been obvious to borisjohnson. i believed implicitly that these events were within the rules. that's why i said what i said in the chamber.

the us announce another new military aid package for ukraine