set earlier on. many others the sun set earlier on. many others are keeping those clear skies through tonight and into tomorrow. more in the way of dry weather, with some sunshine around but not quite everywhere tomorrow, because there is some rain on the way to the north—west and that marks a bit of a change to more unsettled conditions in the middle of the week. but at the moment it is high pressured dominating the weather. weather fronts trying to move in from the atlantic so that will bring rain through tuesday. in fact, we are seeing more cloud and rain filtering in from the north—west through tonight, bringing a few splashes of light rain but for much of england and wales, eastern scotland it is cold and clear. a touch of frost and temperatures getting down a few degrees below freezing in the more rural spots. we could be minus four first thing tomorrow morning. a few misty patches around here and there first thing, they will clear away quickly because we have strong sunshine this time of year, particularly across england, wales and the east of scotland. further

west, more cloud and a few spots of rain in the morning and that could be more persistent into northern ireland on the western isles in the afternoon. not as cool as it has been close to the east coast, we are tending to lose the breeze. through into the middle of the week for the front tracks its way gradually southwards and eastwards. it will bring a spell of wet weather for many others. on wednesday, quite a lot of cloud moving on, rain putting in as well and the breeze picking up. down towards east anglia and the south—east you are more likely to stay dry and bright to a good part of the day and around ten to 13 degrees. look ahead towards easter, a few showers on the map and things looking dry for most of us easter sunday. thanks, sarah. and that's bbc news at ten on monday the 3rd of april — there's more analysis of the days main stories on newsnight with kirsty wark, which isjust getting under way on bbc two. the news continues here on bbc one, as now it's time to join our colleagues across the nations and regions for the news where you are,

but from the ten team it's goodnight.

who killed a leading russian pro—war blogger in st petersburg, in an episode reminiscent of the cold war? the russian authorities arrest a young woman and allege the attack, using a bomb inside a statuette, was organised by ukrainian special services, but there are other theories too. we'll be asking our guests if it was ukrainians, russian anti—war protestors, or the result of russian factionalfighting. also tonight, as we come on air, we learned of the death of nigel lawson, former chancellor

of the exchequer in margaret thatcher's government. we speak to lord lamont, a chancellor himself who was also lord lawson's number two at the treasury. and more school strikes in england, as teachers reject the latest offer. but could the deals accepted by teachers in wales and scotland offer a template for success? and, as italy bans the bot chatgpt—li, and experts publicly warn that al combines the promise of extraordinary scientific advances with the risk of being an existential threat, we ask two humans, which is it? good evening. vladlen tatarsky was a high—profile champion of the war in ukraine, a blogger who didn't appear to be afraid to criticise the kremlin for their shortcomings in the war. his murder, in a cafe in st petersburg, once owned by yevgeny prigozhin, the head of the wagner mercenary group, was like something out of the �*60s. tatarsky was handed a statuette, which exploded, killing him

and wounding as many as 30 of his supporters. the russians promptly arrested a young woman, darya trepova, an anti—war protestor. prigozhin himself has opined he didn't think the blast was the work of the ukrainian government and another theory is it could also be the work of russian political infighting. here's joe inwood. a spring day in st petersburg, and a young woman enters a cafe. inside, one of russia's most famous pro—war propagandists is giving a talk to the faithful. she presents him with a bust in his own image, much to the delight of vladlen tatarsky. moments later, this happens. tatarsky was killed, many more wounded, in what seems to have been a meticulously planned hit carried out to perfection. so who was vladlen tatarsky?

he may have been a blogger, but he was no journalist. his real name was maxim fomin. and in 2014, he was serving a prison sentence for robbing a bank. the outbreak of war gave him freedom and a cause. vladlen tatarsky is a convicted bank robber turned nationalist blogger who's been embedded with the russian forces, particularly with the wagner mercenary forces in eastern ukraine. the climax of his fame or infamy, depending on who you ask about it, last year, when he was invited to the kremlin in september 2022 to an event celebrating the annexation of four ukrainian regions. as he was walking about the kremlin, he filmed himself and he was saying some really extraordinary things.

"we will kill everyone". "we will defeat everyone". "we will rob everyone who deserves to be robbed". and he said, "everything will be just the way we like it". soon after the blast, russian authorities quickly made an arrest. they claim darya trepova was a supporter ofjailed opposition leader alexei navalny and had admitted her involvement but claimed someone gave her the statue. which leads us on to the big question. if she didn't act alone, who was behind the killing of vladlen tatarsky? the russians were quick to accuse kyiv. kremlin spokesman dmitry peskov calling it a terrorist attack and saying they had data pointing to ukrainian intelligence, but would tatarsky be high on ukraine's hitlist? he was a hate figure in ukraine, obviously, but would ukraine, would ukrainian secret services,

want to deploy resources that time and effort while they have their hands full with war at home? that's a very big if, in my view. it was a point also made by yevgeny prigozhin, head of the russian wagner mercenary group, and no friend of ukraine. translation: | would not blame| the kyiv regime for these actions. i think it was a group of radicals who were hardly connected to the government. so is it plausible that russian dissidents were behind such a complex operation? this was an incredibly sophisticated attack. it was bond—esque in terms of an assassination to be killed by a bomb hidden within a small statue in your own image. and, as a result, it seems unlikely that this would be a random group of dissidents. it's much more likely this points to an attack from within the russian establishment. which leads us to the final suspect, someone inside the russian government.

but why? just a few days ago, he created a new group, along with some other so—called ultra patriot bloggers, to protest and to be more vociferous in their criticism of the ministry of defence's tactics. the truth is, it's far too early to say for sure who was behind this attack. what really happened may take months to emerge, if it ever does. there are so many forces that might be interested in his murder. there are so many forces that could have the capability of doing that. the absence of credible, independent investigative reporters in russia now makes it all but impossible to get to the bottom of this bomb attack in the foreseeable future. joe inwood reporting there.

joining us now live from kyiv is a member of ukraine's parliament, leader of liberal party "golos" kira rudik and christo grozev, lead russian investigator of bellingcat. the russians immediately say it was the ukrainian authorities who were behind the murder. i have mixed —— unexpected or expected by you? hello, thank you for having me. first of all, ukrainian special services of course deny that they are behind this incident. and, of course, i trust them. let's look into who is the beneficiary of this event. and i call that it is, of course, the russian government. they didn't have any military victory on the battlefield for the last six months and they have absolutely nothing to feed to their propaganda.

right now, they have removed one of the critics of the regime and the strategy they were using and turned peoples eyes off bakhmut, where they have been announcing for the 15th time they have taken over the city, but they have not. so right now they are gathering people's hatred again over ukraine. forever, i think it will take really time to learn the truth about it but, as always, when we are making assumptions, we should be looking for who would be a beneficiary. be looking for who would be a beneficiary-— be looking for who would be a beneficia . . ~' , ., , . beneficiary. thank you very much. you have been _ beneficiary. thank you very much. you have been watching _ beneficiary. thank you very much. you have been watching what - beneficiary. thank you very much. - you have been watching what happened and you've been watching the video. what does it tell you that's most likely to be happening here? major again, iagree

likely to be happening here? major again, i agree it will take at least again, i agree it will take at least a few more days if not weeks before we have more clarity,— we have more clarity, because this is almost like _ we have more clarity, because this is almost like an _ we have more clarity, because this is almost like an agatha _ we have more clarity, because this is almost like an agatha christie i is almost like an agatha christie whodunnit. but we can exclude a couple _ whodunnit. but we can exclude a couple of — whodunnit. but we can exclude a couple of scenarios. what we see is that, _ couple of scenarios. what we see is that, from — couple of scenarios. what we see is that, from some of the videos i've watched. — that, from some of the videos i've watched, we see that the suspect, darya _ watched, we see that the suspect, darya. _ watched, we see that the suspect, darya. is _ watched, we see that the suspect, darya, is clearly unaware and exposure _ darya, is clearly unaware and exposure will take place. she takes a seat _ exposure will take place. she takes a seat quite close to vladlen tatarskx _ a seat quite close to vladlen tatarsky. we assume that whoever got her involved _ tatarsky. we assume that whoever got her involved with this did not share with other— her involved with this did not share with other plans. she confided to her friend — with other plans. she confided to her friend later she had been set up. her friend later she had been set up this — her friend later she had been set up. this looks very unlikely to be in operation _ up. this looks very unlikely to be in operation of the official ukrainian secret services, because they cannot — ukrainian secret services, because they cannot afford repetition cost of having — they cannot afford repetition cost of having a person engaged by them and being _ of having a person engaged by them and being killed in the operation. -- lhe _ and being killed in the operation. —— the reputation cost. this would be consistent with a domestic operation of the ssp, because they would _ operation of the ssp, because they would want the human cost to be as

damaging _ would want the human cost to be as damaging to ukrainian secret services _ damaging to ukrainian secret services that they would present as the services that they would present as lhe culprit— services that they would present as the culprit in the mid—term. —— a domestic— the culprit in the mid—term. —— a domestic operation of the fsb. this could _ domestic operation of the fsb. this could also— domestic operation of the fsb. this could also be a rogue operation, which _ could also be a rogue operation, which is — could also be a rogue operation, which is also what yevgeny prigozhin has suggested, that is not the state of ukraine, — has suggested, that is not the state of ukraine, that in some rogue operalioh _ of ukraine, that in some rogue operation strip i don't think that fourth _ operation strip i don't think that fourth option, a domestic opposition group _ fourth option, a domestic opposition group in _ fourth option, a domestic opposition group in russia, is behind it. we haven't— group in russia, is behind it. we haven't seen much of that activity and i_ haven't seen much of that activity and i don't — haven't seen much of that activity and i don't think that's likely. can itake and i don't think that's likely. can i take ou and i don't think that's likely. can i take you back to darya and i don't think that's likely. (fyi i take you back to darya trepova? are you disputing she was a young woman who walked in with the statue? if she was, and she was set up, that was somebody who was prepared to sacrifice her life. to get to tatarsky. sacrifice her life. to get to tatarsky-— sacrifice her life. to get to tatars. . , , sacrifice her life. to get to tatars . . , tatarsky. that is exactly my point. this would — tatarsky. that is exactly my point. this would be _ tatarsky. that is exactly my point. this would be very _ tatarsky. that is exactly my point. this would be very unlikely - tatarsky. that is exactly my point. this would be very unlikely to - tatarsky. that is exactly my point. this would be very unlikely to be l this would be very unlikely to be operalioh — this would be very unlikely to be operation organised by the ukrainian secret— operation organised by the ukrainian secret services because they would

have to _ secret services because they would have to sel — secret services because they would have to set her essentially in a situation — have to set her essentially in a situation that she would very likely die, because she sat right next to tatarsky — die, because she sat right next to tatarsky. but die, because she sat right next to tatars . �* . die, because she sat right next to tatars . �* , , ., die, because she sat right next to tatars .�* , ,., ., die, because she sat right next to tatars . �* , , ., ., ., ., tatarsky. but she is a lone anti-war rotester. tatarsky. but she is a lone anti-war protester. what _ tatarsky. but she is a lone anti-war protester. what was _ tatarsky. but she is a lone anti-war protester. what was she _ tatarsky. but she is a lone anti-war protester. what was she doing - tatarsky. but she is a lone anti-war protester. what was she doing in i protester. what was she doing in that cafe? . ~' protester. what was she doing in that cafe? ,, ~ , ., , , protester. what was she doing in that cafe? ,, ~ , , ., that cafe? she knew she was put on o eration that cafe? she knew she was put on operation and _ that cafe? she knew she was put on operation and my — that cafe? she knew she was put on operation and my guess _ that cafe? she knew she was put on operation and my guess is - that cafe? she knew she was put on operation and my guess is she - that cafe? she knew she was put on operation and my guess is she was. operation and my guess is she was told something else, that there was a bucking _ told something else, that there was a bucking method inside that she wants— a bucking method inside that she wants this — a bucking method inside that she wants this person. so a bucking method inside that she wants this person.— a bucking method inside that she wants this person. so somebody was reared wants this person. so somebody was prepared to — wants this person. so somebody was prepared to set _ wants this person. so somebody was prepared to set her _ wants this person. so somebody was prepared to set her up _ wants this person. so somebody was prepared to set her up and _ wants this person. so somebody was prepared to set her up and sacrifice i prepared to set her up and sacrifice her. , ., ., ., , ., her. her behaviour inwardly after she walked _ her. her behaviour inwardly after she walked out, _ her. her behaviour inwardly after she walked out, we _ her. her behaviour inwardly after she walked out, we see - her. her behaviour inwardly after she walked out, we see her- her. her behaviour inwardly after - she walked out, we see her stopping and talking, she takes her time, she is not _ and talking, she takes her time, she is not running. she is shell—shocked and talking — is not running. she is shell—shocked and talking to people. she clearly didn't— and talking to people. she clearly didn't know this was going to happen _ didn't know this was going to happen. she also had a ticket purchased for later that evening that she — purchased for later that evening that she did not take them so really she thought something would happen but it wasn't involved in assassination. so but it wasn't involved in assassination.— but it wasn't involved in assassination. ., ., assassination. so we are hearing it will take a while _ assassination. so we are hearing it will take a while for— assassination. so we are hearing it will take a while for this _ assassination. so we are hearing it will take a while for this to - assassination. so we are hearing it will take a while for this to be - will take a while for this to be sorted out, but does want it investigated, do you think? it’s

investigated, do you think? it's very likely _ investigated, do you think? it's very likely that, even if this was in operation organised by russian secret— in operation organised by russian secret services, it's a very compartmentalised, contained think that there _ compartmentalised, contained think that there will be an investigation for sure _ that there will be an investigation for sure and there will be a unit theoretically that was behind it that will— theoretically that was behind it that will be trying to prevent and interfere — that will be trying to prevent and interfere with the investigation. we saw this— interfere with the investigation. we saw this happen with the assassination of somebody else, where _ assassination of somebody else, where one — assassination of somebody else, where one unit of the investigative authorities— where one unit of the investigative authorities wasn't investigating whereas— authorities wasn't investigating whereas another was clearly interfering. so something that this is possible. interfering. so something that this is ossible. ~ ., ., .,~ ., is possible. what do you make of what we have _ is possible. what do you make of what we have been _ is possible. what do you make of what we have been saying? - is possible. what do you make of what we have been saying? i - is possible. what do you make of i what we have been saying? i agree with most of— what we have been saying? i agree with most of the _ what we have been saying? i agree with most of the assumptions. - what we have been saying? i agree with most of the assumptions. i i with most of the assumptions. i think that, whatever happens, and whatever was the reason for it and whatever they will figure out during their investigation, russian propaganda will still use it for one cause, to organise people and mobilise them hide hatred and

continuing the war and turning people's minds of inability to get any major wins in our territory. also, putin will definitely use it as a warning to the ones who are trying to oppose him inside the country. so we would most likely not learn the truth soon.— learn the truth soon. thank you both very much- — now, in the last hour we've learned that nigel lawson, who served as chancellor of the exchequer under margaret thatcher, has died at the age of 91. prime minister rishi sunak hasjust released a statement saying, "one of the first things i did as chancellor was hang a picture "of nigel lawson above my desk. "he was a transformational chancellor and an inspiration "to me and many others." borisjohnson called him a "giant" of tory politics. in a moment we'll speak to lord lamont who became chancellor the year after lawson resigned from the role but first ben is with me.

in the end, what will we remember most from margaret thatcher's government?— most from margaret thatcher's government? most from margaret thatcher's rovernment? ., ., , ., most from margaret thatcher's rovernment? ., ., .. government? nigel lawson was one of the most significant _ government? nigel lawson was one of the most significant of _ government? nigel lawson was one of the most significant of all _ government? nigel lawson was one of the most significant of all post-war - the most significant of all post—war uk chancellors. he cited by pretty much every conservative chancellor of the decade as a profound influence. in the 1980s, he was a key part of the thatcher economic revolution, free—market revolution. his reputation was as a tax cutter but his tax reforms were arguably as important. he is credited with creating powerful entrepreneurial forces in society, wealth creating forces, in the 805, but it should be stressed as well that that decade is also remembered many communities around the uk is a time of widening inequality and very painful deindustrialisation. one of his other great missions as chancellor was to control inflation, which led to him falling out with margaret thatcher, because over how to go about controlling it and ultimately because he thought she was getting advice from people other than him.

that led to his resignation. in the years after that, he has remained influential. he was consulted by george osborne in the austerity era. more recently, he was a vocal backer brexit and an opponent of measures to try and forestall climate change. one of his most eye—catching recent intervention politically was to back rishi sunak rather than liz truss in the tory leadership election contest last year, saying that her plans for unfunded tax cuts were not actually in the thatcherite tradition but would unleash and risk going back to the mistakes of the 19705, and the market chaos which followed her getting in and enacting those would be cited by his many admirers as evidence of the lasting quality of his judgment. i'm joined now by lord lamont, who was chief secretary to the treasury in 1989, when nigel lawson resigned as chancellor, and became chancellor himself in 1990. thank you forjoining us. first of all, just personal recollections and

working alongside him? mr; all, just personal recollections and working alongside him?— working alongside him? my first reaction is _ working alongside him? my first reaction is great _ working alongside him? my first reaction is great sadness - working alongside him? my first. reaction is great sadness because working alongside him? my first i reaction is great sadness because i very much enjoyed working with nigel. i worked with him in the opposition and i worked with him in the treasury. he was very stimulating, but also he had a great sense of humour and fun. he was not a bumptious character at all, he was quite capable of sending himself up and making fun of himself. but that was perhaps the aspect of his character that was kept secret from the public really. taste character that was kept secret from the public really.— character that was kept secret from the public really. we are seeing two thins, the public really. we are seeing two things. first — the public really. we are seeing two things. first of _ the public really. we are seeing two things, first of all _ the public really. we are seeing two things, first of all the _ things, first of all the privatisation agenda and also the idea of creating the tide of entrepreneurialism in the early 805. yes, i think mrs thatcher also had that idea, but nigel i think was also very instrumental in creating what was called the medium term financial strategy which was implemented by geoffrey howe. it was

a monetary control of the money supply flan —— plan for reducing inflation. that was very much the thinking of geoffrey howe but it came from niger. nigelalso thinking of geoffrey howe but it came from niger. nigel also had a profound influence onjeffrey�*s budget, including the 1981 budget, that 365 economies condemned because they thought it would stop the economy growing and the economy started growing from that immediate point. as your correspondence, he is much remembered for his own budget in 1987 which introduced dramatic tax cuts and is very much talked about even to this day by conservative politicians. but he also fell out — conservative politicians. but he also fell out with _ conservative politicians. but he also fell out with margaret - conservative politicians. but he - also fell out with margaret thatcher on the way best to control inflation. can you remember what was happening? can you remember him locking horns with her? it happening? can you remember him locking horns with her?— locking horns with her? it was interesting — locking horns with her? it was interesting because _ locking horns with her? it was interesting because i - locking horns with her? it was interesting because i do - locking horns with her? it was - interesting because i do remember it but nigel was very discreet about it. he didn't talk to other people about the fact he was having an

argument with mrs thatcher. but what i gathered about, it was two things. one, she had discovered to her annoyance that nigel was shadowing the deutschmark, tagging the pound to the deutschmark and she had not been told about this. nigel said it was perfectly obvious and not a secret. two, she had her own adviser, siralan secret. two, she had her own adviser, sir alan walters, who was critical of nigel and nigel did not like the fact that he was going around city boardrooms attacking and criticising nigel and that is why nigel resigned. nigel fell out from that moment with margaret, but actually he deeply respected her and retain profound affection for her and never talked ill of her. this retain profound affection for her and never talked ill of her. as ben said a moment _ and never talked ill of her. as ben said a moment ago, _ and never talked ill of her. as ben said a moment ago, he _ and never talked ill of her. as ben said a moment ago, he was - and never talked ill of her. as ben said a moment ago, he was late i and never talked ill of her. as ben| said a moment ago, he was late to come to the idea of climate change. he was a climate change sceptic, wasn't it? . he was a climate change sceptic, wasn't it? , ., , ., .,

wasn't it? yes, he was more than that. i wasn't it? yes, he was more than that- lthink— wasn't it? yes, he was more than that. l think he _ wasn't it? yes, he was more than that. l think he felt _ wasn't it? yes, he was more than that. i think he felt climate - wasn't it? yes, he was more thanl that. i think he felt climate change was happening but at a much slower pace. he also felt that society could adapt to climate change and that many of the measures that were being introduced to counter climate change were extremely harmful to the economy and counter—productive, and he felt we should think more about adaptation by building sea walls, altering the architecture of our buildings and that sort of thing. norman lamont, thank you forjoining us. norman lamont, thank you for 'oining us. . ~' norman lamont, thank you for 'oining us. . ~ , ., there will most likely be at least two more days of school strikes in england after members of the national education union rejected a pay offer of a 4.3% rise next year, a one of payment of £1000 for this year, and an increase in starting salaries to £30,000 from september. 98% of those who voted in the ballot, on a 66% turnout, turned the deal down, and so strikes are slated for 27th april and 2nd of may.

so how are the dynamics of the strikes likely to play out, especially when teachers in wales and scotland negotiated a better deal? here's ben again. members of the largest teaching union in england have overwhelmingly rejected the government's pay offer, meaning further strikes are set to go ahead in april and may. but is it nevertheless possible that we are moving closer to a deal? let's look at the numbers. first, the economic context. last november, the government's official forecaster, the office for budget responsibility, was projecting inflation in 2023—24, the financial year which is about to start, of 5.5%. but in the budget last month it reduced that to 4.1%, mainly on the back of lower wholesale gas prices. now nurses in england have received a 5% pay increase offer for the coming financial year, along with a one—off cash sum for 2022—23, and the unions are recommending members accept it. as you can see that means

for the coming year it's now higher than expected inflation, meaning a real terms pay increase. but what about teachers? well, the offer from the government is for 4.3% for teachers in england. as you can see, also higher than the expected inflation, so a real terms increase implied too, yet a smaller one than nurses have been offered. it's also worth noting that teachers in scotland and wales recently received an offer of 5% from their respective governments. and in both scotland and wales teachers have been offered a backdated and partially conslidated increase in pay for last year, notjust as a one—off £1,000 cash payment as in england. so it seems possible that english teachers will hold out for at least equal treatment in 2023/24 as their scottish and welsh counterparts. but what of the economic impact of these strikes? could that be a factor in pushing the uk government to reach a settlement? we only have uk gdp data up untiljanuary and the english school strikes started in february.

but we can expect an economic impact. a survey for the office for national statistics in december found over half of parents reporting they would be affected if schools closed because of strikes. 31% said they would have to work fewer hours. and 28% said they would not be able to work at all. rmember that more than 50% of schools in england closed or restricted attendance on the national strike days in february and march. most economists haven't pencilled in large, lasting negative impacts from uk strikes in recent months. their view is that consumption missed from, say, rail strike disruption is recouped later. yet this recovery of lost activity is harder when the disruption is to schools. and one has to bear in mind the longer term economic costs from strikes to damage to children's education. these economic costs might not be visible in the monthly gdp figures but they are, nonetheless, very real.

yet, bear in mind there's a sizeable recruitment problem for teachers in england, which unions say is a consequence of a deep fall in real pay and an increase in workload over many years. the horizontal line shows the target for post—graduate teacher trainee recruitment in england. it's being missed by an increasing margin — just 71% achieved in 2023/23. if properly staffed, schools are an educational and economic benefit. this suggests long term economic damage too. so this is the broad economic context for these strikes and the dispute over teacher pay. schools really do matter for the economy, both in the short term and the longer term. sir mark rowley, the commisioner of the met, has passed his self—imposed deadline to make public the results of operation onyx, the first of many steps he promised to take to clean up the met and transform it into a police force the people of london and beyond can trust.

when the metropolitan police officer david carrick was jailed for more than 30 years after admitting 2a counts of rape after 17 years operating with impunity in the met, sir mark rowley apologised to all carrick�*s victims and went on... indeed, i apologise to the women of london, many of whom i'm sure will be troubled and their trust in policing will be shaken. shaken by these events. he made a promise to review allegations of sexual violence and abuse made against almost 100 police officers and police staff and abuse made against almost 1100 police officers and police staff in the last ten years who are still serving in the force. he also pledged that by the end of march, the met would have completed operation onyx, our review of the officers and staff whom we have concerning domestic or sexual incident reports against.

he also promised to have tested new legal routes to dismiss those who fail vetting. it's one of the biggest challenges facing the met�*s commissioner. the misconduct systems do not connect up a man that took a woman by her neck and dragged her down a staircase. carrick, and yet somehow he's still serving as a police officer and we gave him a gun. so, you know, my worry about today, having been at this now for a year, is kind of what will it take to get wholesale change? operation onyx is meant to bejust one answer to baroness casey's question of what it will take to get that wholesale change and reform. but its delivery is crucial if sir mark rowley�*s apology to all the women of london

is to mean anything. with me now is harriet wistrich, the director and founder of the centre for women's justice. the organisation lodged the first police super—complaint, highlighting serious failures by the police to use powers designed to protect victims of domestic violence, submitted back in 2019. thank you very much forjoining us. we understood that operation onyx was going to be reporting on their progress by the end of march. we are talking about at least 1100 officers, it was due to report by the end of march, as were the implications in legal changes that were allowed to dismiss officers, but we don't have it. hit). were allowed to dismiss officers, but we don't have it.— were allowed to dismiss officers, but we don't have it. no, and that is very concerning _ but we don't have it. no, and that is very concerning after _ but we don't have it. no, and that| is very concerning after everything we have heard. there have been repeated reports. we have heard from baroness casey and absolutely excoriating report about what is going on within the met. the failure

now i learnt is we are not having a report of the outcome of operation onyx as promised by the end of march and that is concerning. there is such a huge mountain that the police have to climb if they are ever going to when that trust. taste have to climb if they are ever going to when that trust.— have to climb if they are ever going to when that trust. we e-mailed the met as we would _ to when that trust. we e-mailed the met as we would always _ to when that trust. we e-mailed the met as we would always do, - to when that trust. we e-mailed the met as we would always do, but - to when that trust. we e-mailed the | met as we would always do, but there was absolutely no response to this. let's be quite clear, what louise casey said, and very clearly, is there is a fundamental problem here, it isn't the case of a bad apple or two, it is a culture. so in your view, having seen so many of these cases, how are we going to change the culture? how is he going to change the culture? j the culture? how is he going to change the culture?— the culture? how is he going to change the culture? i mean, it is ve , change the culture? i mean, it is very. very _ change the culture? i mean, it is very, very difficult _ change the culture? i mean, it is very, very difficult because - change the culture? i mean, it is very, very difficult because the i very, very difficult because the problems are so endemic and they are systemic. we have got problems around britain, problems around recruitment, problems around misconduct, but ultimately it is about a culture based on loyalty and

loyalty above integrity, if you like. and so what happens is we have collusion, we have silence, we have a failure of managers and supervisors to take officers to account and basically it is a culture that is fostering not simply tolerating, but fostering, or has done, this kind of abusive behaviour. to done, this kind of abusive behaviour.— done, this kind of abusive behaviour. ., , ., ~ done, this kind of abusive behaviour. ., , . ~ ., behaviour. to be fair, the met are processing — behaviour. to be fair, the met are processing cases _ behaviour. to be fair, the met are processing cases against - behaviour. to be fair, the met are processing cases against officers i processing cases against officers every week. processing cases against officers every week-— processing cases against officers eve week. , . ., , ., , every week. yes, and what is really shockin: every week. yes, and what is really shocking is — every week. yes, and what is really shocking is that _ every week. yes, and what is really shocking is that there _ every week. yes, and what is really shocking is that there are _ every week. yes, and what is really shocking is that there are said - every week. yes, and what is really shocking is that there are said to i shocking is that there are said to be 1100 reports of officers who are alleged to have committed sexual violence or domestic violence towards women. 1100 out of 43,000 officers? that is shocking that those officers are still in the police and there are so many. we have seen what happened with david carrick in particular and the number of missed opportunities, the extent

of missed opportunities, the extent of his abuse of so many women over such a long period of time, when it was known, even when he first was recruited to the police there was an allegation against him. when he was on his probation period, a second allegation against him which he was passed through. he used his powers as an officer to kind of encourage women to feel safe with him. sir mark rowley has said he is going to do everything to transform the met and i wonder whether or not the met have been in touch and have involved your organisation in talking about their reforms.— your organisation in talking about their reforms. ~ ., , ,., ~ their reforms. well, we have spoken with maggie — their reforms. well, we have spoken with maggie blythe _ their reforms. well, we have spoken with maggie blythe who _ their reforms. well, we have spoken with maggie blythe who is _ their reforms. well, we have spoken with maggie blythe who is a - their reforms. well, we have spoken with maggie blythe who is a lead - their reforms. well, we have spoken with maggie blythe who is a lead in i with maggie blythe who is a lead in the mpc c. but essentially it is not just a matter for the met to speak to us. i think we need to come outside of the met police, this is a problem across all police forces as

well, but the problems in the met are particularly stark. but we need to create a process and the independent inquiry could be such a process. but it hasn't yet got powers to do that and to hear from those at the cutting—edge of policing what has to change. in policing what has to change. in terms of transparency, in this coming month, what do you want to see? ~ ., ., , coming month, what do you want to see? . ., ., , , ., , , see? well, we have to see progress, we have to — see? well, we have to see progress, we have to see _ see? well, we have to see progress, we have to see what _ see? well, we have to see progress, we have to see what is _ see? well, we have to see progress, we have to see what is going - see? well, we have to see progress, we have to see what is going on - see? well, we have to see progress, we have to see what is going on at i we have to see what is going on at each stage, but we also need to see what are they doing about all the people, notjust the offices accuse, but all the officers who knew about what was going on? what about the supervisors, the managers? what about the ones that let these guys through the vetting process? it goes beyond just the individual officers who have been accuse, but the whole structure and the whole culture within policing and the supervision

and management structure. thank you ve much. following italy's decision to ban the advanced chatbot chatgpt—4 over privacy concerns, and to investigate whether it complied with gdpr, the british data watchdog has issued a warning to tech firms about using people's personal data to develop chatbots. and, in his column in the times newspaper tomorrow, william hague writes that al is like the nuclear arms race — it's too late to press pause. here's our tech guru, kate. first of all, let's start with what's happening in italy. italy boss hog decision to suspend chatgpt came to exalt the software suffered a data breach which revealed payment information from some users. that bug was fixed but there were concerns about a lack of age verification, many young users can access an appropriate content, and they noted that personal data was being collected to train the algorithm which makes it work, and

they say there is no legal basis for that. the company behind chatgpt say they believe is it complies with privacy laws but in germany's day the commissioner for data protection said they could follow suit if necessary and what stops in france ireland are also following up. if ireland are also following up. if there is concerted european pressure, what might happen? there is discussion — pressure, what might happen? there is discussion about _ pressure, what might happen? there is discussion about further _ pressure, what might happen? pp- is discussion about further bands or suspension, but there has been a wider concern about this kind of programme. google has a chat bot, meta is a language model and thousands of people, including elon musk and apple co—founder steve wasn't yet signed a letter recommending that, to prevent this race to develop every powerful version, the training of any artificial intelligence more advanced than the latest chatgpt should be put for six months for potential disruption can be regulated. chatgpt can code websites, it can help write articles and some red science, it could have and some red science, it could have an impact onjobs but and some red science, it could have an impact on jobs but there are also unintended consequences. if it

an impact on jobs but there are also unintended consequences. if it were bou~ht unintended consequences. if it were bou . ht for unintended consequences. if it were bought for six _ unintended consequences. if it were bought for six months, _ unintended consequences. if it were bought for six months, bad - unintended consequences. if it were bought for six months, bad actors . bought for six months, bad actors are not going to pause. share are not going to pause. are suggesting _ are not going to pause. are suggesting that _ are not going to pause. sire: suggesting that they need are not going to pause. jif9: suggesting that they need to are not going to pause. 9:9 suggesting that they need to pause the more powerful versions to get these revelations in place to stop these revelations in place to stop these unintended consequences, think about a joint, sophisticated or to correct which has been tried on billions of words of human writing and it allows what were to come next, when you train something on human writing, it also gets trained on human bias and you have to safeguard against that and, because these programmes are trying to get these programmes are trying to get the approval of humans, it often constructs an incorrect answer rather than saying, i don't know the answer. that runs the risk of misinformation, and then there is the unknown. some research shows, the unknown. some research shows, the more ai models are trained by humans, the more likely they are to express a desire to not shut down. joining me now in the studio is professor of biomedical computing delmiro fernandez—reyes, who has given evidence to the select committee inquiry on al. david duvenaud, associate professor in computer science at the university of toronto,

joins down the line. good evening to both of you. first of all, was what italy did a surprise or not, being the first? the point of the race is a valid point and the transparency of the data used and whether it bridges gdpr. i think the way was done was too abrupt. they should have viewed the guidelines do not stop the innovation but certainly the content. is innovation but certainly the content. . ~ innovation but certainly the content. . ,, ., content. is it the kind of thing, in a wa , content. is it the kind of thing, in a way. that— content. is it the kind of thing, in a way. that a _ content. is it the kind of thing, in a way, that a country _ content. is it the kind of thing, in a way, that a country can - content. is it the kind of thing, in a way, that a country can do - content. is it the kind of thing, in a way, that a country can do on i content. is it the kind of thing, in | a way, that a country can do on its own, because there are open border. they are using chatgpt and other countries, so italy acting alone seems to be a strange and perhaps ineffective way of proceeding to step it ineffective way of proceeding to

ste_ . ineffective way of proceeding to ste_ , ., , ineffective way of proceeding to ste ; , ., , , , . _ step it is. it was specified by the secretary of _ step it is. it was specified by the secretary of state _ step it is. it was specified by the secretary of state last _ step it is. it was specified by the secretary of state last week - step it is. it was specified by the secretary of state last week in i step it is. it was specified by the i secretary of state last week in the report, how do you actually regulate with well—established regulators to understand this and increase the developed of the platforms and the technology? developed of the platforms and the technolo: ? , ., ., , ., technology? david duvenaud, do you think regulation _ technology? david duvenaud, do you think regulation would _ technology? david duvenaud, do you think regulation would always - technology? david duvenaud, do you think regulation would always be - think regulation would always be behind development? with chat bots. major down the road, it's not clear what regulation.— what regulation. right now, there are only three _ what regulation. right now, there are only three or _ what regulation. right now, there are only three or four _ what regulation. right now, there are only three or four companies. are only three or four companies with the — are only three or four companies with the capital expertise train these — with the capital expertise train these very large jackpots. so with the capital expertise train these very large jackpots. these very large 'ackpots. so what is the these very large jackpots. so what is the opportunity? _ these very large jackpots. so what is the opportunity? the _ these very large jackpots. so what i is the opportunity? the opportunity is, b is the opportunity? the opportunity is. by stopping _ is the opportunity? the opportunity is. by stopping the _ is the opportunity? the opportunity is, by stopping the next _ is the opportunity? the opportunity| is, by stopping the next generation, we have _ is, by stopping the next generation, we have a _ is, by stopping the next generation, we have a chance to understand these capabilities— we have a chance to understand these capabilities and figure out what saved _ capabilities and figure out what saved of— capabilities and figure out what saved of element would look like. right _ saved of element would look like. right now, there is no oversight or public— right now, there is no oversight or public knowledge of what the next models _

public knowledge of what the next models are doing. give public knowledge of what the next models are doing.— public knowledge of what the next models are doing. give me a scenario which, in models are doing. give me a scenario which. in your— models are doing. give me a scenario which, in your view, _ models are doing. give me a scenario which, in your view, would _ models are doing. give me a scenario which, in your view, would be - which, in your view, would be dangerous, if it wasn't posed. if there wasn't a pause. i dangerous, if it wasn't posed. if there wasn't a pause.— dangerous, if it wasn't posed. if there wasn't a pause. i think the big danger— there wasn't a pause. i think the big danger is _ there wasn't a pause. i think the big danger is that _ there wasn't a pause. i think the big danger is that these - big danger is that these models offer— big danger is that these models offer useful and capable and we are probably— offer useful and capable and we are probably going to have to start making — probably going to have to start making decisions for us and it's them _ making decisions for us and it's them into— making decisions for us and it's them into our economy so, ultimately, we are afraid of not losing — ultimately, we are afraid of not losing control of our own situations, civilisations. is that 'ust situations, civilisations. is that just luddite? _ situations, civilisations. is that just luddite? or _ situations, civilisations. is that just luddite? or is _ situations, civilisations. is that just luddite? or is it _ situations, civilisations. is that just luddite? or is it a - situations, civilisations. is thatj just luddite? or is it a genuine concern? if actually, ai chat bots learn from other ai chat bots, then they get ahead of themselves. one thin is we they get ahead of themselves. f?�*u§ thing is we need to understand ai is notjust thing is we need to understand ai is not just these chat thing is we need to understand ai is notjust these chat bots. it's a plethora of technologies and techniques and this is one. it's extremely powerful what it does perfectly well. the question is the

use of the regulation. as we know, nuclear energy is a good way of generating energy and its regulators. in this case, we need to regulate this whereby to the benefit to the scientific community. the use of it, for example, is the problem, rather than the technology itself. plan camp i rather than the technology itself. plan cam -_ ~ ., ., rather than the technology itself. plan cam_ ~ ., ., ., , plan camp i think a lot of people feel that. or _ plan camp i think a lot of people feel that. or use _ plan camp i think a lot of people feel that. or use that _ plan camp i think a lot of people feel that. or use that device, i plan camp i think a lot of people | feel that. or use that device, like the medical— feel that. or use that device, like the medical devices, _ feel that. or use that device, like the medical devices, and - feel that. or use that device, like the medical devices, and i- feel that. or use that device, like the medical devices, and i think. feel that. or use that device, like i the medical devices, and i think of ai is a medical device, add or use a machine like this in a medical context? �* , : machine like this in a medical context? �* , ~ ., , context? broadly, ai. goldman sachs a re ort context? broadly, ai. goldman sachs a report saying _ context? broadly, ai. goldman sachs a report saying they _ context? broadly, ai. goldman sachs a report saying they reckon _ context? broadly, ai. goldman sachs a report saying they reckon 300 - a report saying they reckon 300 million jobs will be lost through ai and some kind of redeployment. is that scaremongering?