here to stay, so that rain, it was here to stay, so cloudy, grey skies and fairly murky conditions to close the day, and the rain continues to meander its way slowly eased. it's not in a rush to clear, but we have got some clearing skies now across scotland and northern ireland, but it will stay rather grey and wet through eastern scotland and eastern england overnight. the cloud acting like a blanket, very misty and murky first thing tomorrow, but a very mild start in comparison to recent warnings. we are looking at six to nine first thing. tomorrow morning, a great start in eastern england and scotland. eventually, sunny spells and scattered showers for the afternoon. some of those shows could be heavy, possibly even thundery. temperatures may well page at 14, but you need to keep an eye on a cluster of shops i was on that east yorkshire coast. a better afternoon for northern ireland and western scotland, with some sunshine.

temperatures around ten to 12. going through the evening hours, these showers will run down through that kent coast. skies will then clear as high pressure starts to build and look at the difference, from a mild night to a colder night, frost is likely again in the far west of scotland. with that high pressure comes the sign of something quieter and sunnier, as we go into the longer easter weekend. there will be some weather fronts pushing longer easter weekend. there will be some weatherfronts pushing in longer easter weekend. there will be some weather fronts pushing in from the west, but probably not arriving until sunday or monday. not a bad start. we will be chasing some cloud rent, particularly in eastern england, but there will be some rain on sunday and monday as well. enjoy.

peter murrell, the former chief executive of the snp, was released without charge tonight in an allegation that £600,000 donated for a second referendum campaign is missing. we'll be joined by the polling expert and political commentatorjohn curtice, political journalist hannah roger. and a leader of the yes movement, aamer anwar, to ask after weeks of political infighting and now this, where now for this once unified party? also tonight — the return of detention of children with families who arrive in the uk illegally. why is the government doing a u—turn

on a policy passed into law under the coalition government in 2014? and bbc persian presenter rana rahimpour tells this programme she's received half a million threats on social media since the protests in iran exploded last year. we investigate why threats againstjournalists and lawyers who work with dissidents here in the uk but from iran, russia and china seem to be growing. i have two lay low because the advice was we just need to disappear for a while for the threats to go down. good evening from glasgow. it's exactly a week since a new first minister of scotland was sworn in, and nicola sturgeon began the next period of her life, but she is now at the heart of this extraordinary drama. one question is whether her decision to stand down had anything to do with the investigation into her husband.

this is what she said when she announced she was quitting. how have you gone from having plenty in the tank three weeks ago _ to an empty tank today? what is it that's changed| over the last few weeks? you've mentioned some things, i the only thing you didn't mention is the police inquiry- into the party's finances. look, these things are not the reason i'm standing here today. these are not factors, nor will my decision today affect these things and all of these things will take their course. and tonight, in a statement, nicola sturgeon said that she had no prior knowledlge of police scotland's actions or intentions and said she would fully cooperate with police scotland if required, however at this time no such request has been made. we have yet to see what impact this will have on support for the snp, today scotland's labour leader anas sarwar said today that we have an snp government which is mired in scandal

and mired in division. when nicola sturgeon officially succeeded alex salmond unopposed at the party's annual conference just eight weeks after the failed yes vote in the independence referendum she made it very clear in her speech that independence was still the prize. that independence was still the rize. ., ., ., prize. come with me and together, let us make _ prize. come with me and together, let us make it _ prize. come with me and together, let us make it happen. _ prize. come with me and together, let us make it happen. and - prize. come with me and together, let us make it happen. and it - prize. come with me and together, let us make it happen. and it was i let us make it happen. and it was “ust last let us make it happen. and it was just last summer— let us make it happen. and it was just last summer that _ let us make it happen. and it was just last summer that she - let us make it happen. and it was just last summer that she made l let us make it happen. and it was i just last summer that she made her often repeated promise of a second referendum by the 19th of october 2023. the nationalists have been keeping the financial pot boiling and from 2017—2020 they had raised, according to a statement, a total of £666,953 from referendum related appeals. after nicola sturgeon's bute house speech on march 13, 2017 in support of a second referendum, a donate page was launched. this is the page from april the 7th, which suggests the donations were for

support —— tag scott ref. question started to be asked after the snp�*s account showed itjust had an dyed £97,000 in the bank at the end of 2019, and total net assets of £272,000. 50 2019, and total net assets of £272,000. so where was the money donated for a second referendum campaign? then last year, it emerged that mr murrell, the then chief executive of the snp, known to the party £107,620 injune 2021 to help out with what were described as cash flow issues. the snp had repaid about half of that money by the october. an snp spokesman said the 0ctober. an snp spokesman said the transaction had been reported in the party's 2021 accounts published in august last year. weeks earlier, mp douglas chapman resigned as party treasurer saying he had not been given the financial information to

do thejob. the police have been investigating the snp�*s finances for about 18 months now. their involvement triggered when those questions were raised about how more than £600,000 to an independence campaign had been spent. however, there are those who argue that as there are those who argue that as the snp' there are those who argue that as the snp�* rez on tetra is independence the money used was furthering that campaign, no matter if or when a second independence referendum is called. it is understood the investigation reached a crucial stage some weeks ago when officers consulted the crown 0ffice officers consulted the crown office on how to proceed. it is becoming clear now what was the result of those consultations. today, there has been no sight nor sound of nicola sturgeon. but no matter the outcome of her husband's arrest, the fallout may be that it's even less likely she will stand as an msp in the next scottish parliamentary elections are more likely she will pursue a career elsewhere, one that perhaps involves her passion for

europe. joining me now is political activist, lawyer and leading figure from the yes campaign, aamer anwar. thank you forjoining us. what did you make of the drama today? well. you make of the drama today? well, it was very dramatic. _ you make of the drama today? well, it was very dramatic. we _ you make of the drama today? well, it was very dramatic. we saw - you make of the drama today? well, it was very dramatic. we saw a - you make of the drama today? -ii it was very dramatic. we saw a lot of very excited journalists, social media despite the various warnings were awash with rumours and so, yes, very dramatic. but i think what i would say is in terms of assessing the impact, that very much depends on the outcome of the investigation, which is likely to take several months if not longer. as a lawyer, i would remind everyone of two things. firstly, everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence and proceedings are live so speculation is unwise and possibly in contempt of court. �* ., ,, ~' is unwise and possibly in contempt of court. �* ., ,, ~ ., of court. and do you think now lookin: of court. and do you think now looking back — of court. and do you think now looking back that _ of court. and do you think now looking back that the - of court. and do you think now looking back that the police i looking back that the police investigation, which was live for 18

months, perhaps was part of the decision—making process that nicola sturgeon went through when she decided to stand down? i sturgeon went through when she decided to stand down?— sturgeon went through when she decided to stand down? i don't know what the basis _ decided to stand down? i don't know what the basis of _ decided to stand down? i don't know what the basis of her... _ decided to stand down? i don't know what the basis of her... we - decided to stand down? i don't know what the basis of her... we heard i what the basis of her... we heard what the basis of her... we heard what nicola said, was the basis for why she stepped down. i don't know whether it did form part of any decision—making process, that is a matter for nicola to decide vista people will now be questioning as a result of the police action today whether that played any role in her decision to step down. so whether that played any role in her decision to step down.— decision to step down. so do you think, because _ decision to step down. so do you think, because you _ decision to step down. so do you think, because you are _ decision to step down. so do you think, because you are heavily i think, because you are heavily involved in the yes campaign, do you think when people are asked to donate, do you think that they were being asked to donate or thought they were donating to a second independence referendum or to donate to the general snp coffers?— to the general snp coffers? again, i'm not going _ to the general snp coffers? again, i'm not going to — to the general snp coffers? again, i'm not going to step _ to the general snp coffers? again, i'm not going to step into - to the general snp coffers? again, i'm not going to step into the - i'm not going to step into the realms of potentially what is a live investigation. that is a matter for

the police to carry out an investigation and come to any conclusions at the end of the day. i don't have what exactly, in terms of what people are being asked to donate to or not donate to, i haven't seen what the actual catch lines are all the documents that people signed up to. that is a matter that the police should be carrying out an investigation. as i said at the start, there is no room for spec elation here. ida. said at the start, there is no room for spec elation here.— for spec elation here. no, but i meant more — for spec elation here. no, but i meant more broadly. _ for spec elation here. no, but i meant more broadly. you - for spec elation here. no, but i i meant more broadly. you wonder for spec elation here. no, but i - meant more broadly. you wonder what attention people pay when they are actually pros something. for example, you were involved in the yes movement, not everyone in the yes movement, not everyone in the yes movement, not everyone in the yes movement was part of the snp. i think there are two very different things at play here. as a man that was a leader in the yes movement, was a leader in the yes movement, was there any real recognition of that and do you think going forward that and do you think going forward that things will change? i that and do you think going forward that things will change?— that things will change? i think the first thing is _ that things will change? i think the first thing is for _ that things will change? i think the first thing is for everybody - that things will change? i think the first thing is for everybody to - first thing is for everybody to recognise the independence causes not owned by the snp. it doesn't

take away from the fact that today, whatever happens with the fortunes of the snp, whether this does have an impact or not, people remain sick and tired of being dictated to by westminster and it wasn't about the snp. it is not about nicola, it is not about alex, it's independence for people involved in the yes movement is about the future of our country, our children, the ending of poverty, ignorance, equality of opportunity and it grew. the independence movement grew and of course the snp was a driving force in that. alex salmond was a driving force in that, nicola sturgeon was a driving force in that and if people. you know, if you gave money to the yes campaign or the snp for instance, i spent suspect the grey area is you gave money to fight independence because for the snp and i could argue would save their main

focus is independence. however, i don't know the details.— don't know the details. right, “ust finall , don't know the details. right, “ust finally, broadly, i don't know the details. right, “ust finally, broadly, because i don't know the details. right, just finally, broadly, because there - don't know the details. right, just finally, broadly, because there is| finally, broadly, because there is such a lack of trust in politics anyway, do you think politics generally has to become much more transparent? i generally has to become much more transoarent?— generally has to become much more transparent? i think there is demand for that. if transparent? i think there is demand for that- if you _ transparent? i think there is demand for that. if you compare _ transparent? i think there is demand for that. if you compare to _ transparent? i think there is demand for that. if you compare to the - for that. if you compare to the scandals in england, just because the tories were mired in corruption scandals, cash for honours, it didn't turn into a problem for labour. labour has had its own problems of course. but today when people look at this, a lot of people are asking the question about police ticker tape, forensic tests. many are asking the question they didn't see that from the police at number 10 when lawbreaking was happening right under their nose and people are quite right to ask those questions today. people demand transparency, they demand accountability and they want to see people fighting, when we face the

worst cost of living crisis, this is almost like a deflection. they want to see answers, people want to see a future. ., ~' , ., , to see answers, people want to see a future. ., ~ ,, , . future. thank you very much indeed. of course. — future. thank you very much indeed. of course. we _ future. thank you very much indeed. of course, we don't _ future. thank you very much indeed. of course, we don't know— future. thank you very much indeed. of course, we don't know if- future. thank you very much indeed. of course, we don't know if there - future. thank you very much indeed. of course, we don't know if there is l of course, we don't know if there is any lawbreaking in connection with this at all. i am joined now to discuss with this by professor sir john curtis and hannah roger, chief reporterfor john curtis and hannah roger, chief reporter for the john curtis and hannah roger, chief reporterfor the sunday john curtis and hannah roger, chief reporter for the sunday mail. good evening to both of you. tonight, hannah roger, peter murrell has been released without charge pending further investigation. it was a dramatic day. humza yousaf called it a difficult day. dramatic day. humza yousaf called it a difficult day-— a difficult day. yes, yes, there is no denying _ a difficult day. yes, yes, there is no denying it _ a difficult day. yes, yes, there is no denying it was _ a difficult day. yes, yes, there is no denying it was very, - a difficult day. yes, yes, there is no denying it was very, very - no denying it was very, very challenging. as much as us journalists kind of can get a bit caught— journalists kind of can get a bit caught up— journalists kind of can get a bit caught up in all the details on what is going _ caught up in all the details on what is going on. — caught up in all the details on what is going on, but really it is very dramatic — is going on, but really it is very dramatic i_ is going on, but really it is very dramatic. i think that unfortunately it doesm _

dramatic. i think that unfortunately it does... not only was it a difficult _ it does... not only was it a difficult day for the snp but i think— difficult day for the snp but i think politically, it doesn't help in general with public confidence in politics _ in general with public confidence in politics. the in general with public confidence in olitics. , ., , in general with public confidence in olitics. , ., _ ., politics. the question is john curtis, if— politics. the question is john curtis, if this — politics. the question is john | curtis, if this happened during the campaign, might it have impacted on the result? {iii campaign, might it have impacted on the result? .., , campaign, might it have impacted on the result? _, , , the result? of course it is true that humza — the result? of course it is true that humza yousaf in - the result? of course it is true that humza yousaf in the end| that humza yousaf in the end accepted being the continuity candidate, the person who would maintain the strategic direction set out by nicola sturgeon. ms forde said no, we need change. despite the fact that humza yousaf had the overwhelming support of the public declarations of snp parliamentarians, both in london and in edinburgh, he onlyjust won the contest. so to that extent at least, we might ask whether or not if indeed the odds on regime of nicola sturgeon was perhaps a little less clear is whether you want to follow there may be the outcome might have

been different, who knows? you there may be the outcome might have been different, who knows?— been different, who knows? you look at these rooms _ been different, who knows? you look at these rooms all— been different, who knows? you look at these rooms all the _ been different, who knows? you look at these rooms all the time _ been different, who knows? you look at these rooms all the time and - been different, who knows? you look at these rooms all the time and i - at these rooms all the time and i wonder if you think the support of independence is in sync with snp support, by which i mean if the snp was to be damaged in any way with this without necessarily damage the independence of movement? it might damage the movement, but it will not necessarily reduce the support for independence. this has happened at a difficult moment for humza yousaf as the new snp leader, there is a lead reason for that. —— there is a lead reason for that. —— there is a reason for that. support for independence still runs at 48%, but support for the snp is down to 38%, it has dropped three points since the middle of september. we know from the wider polling, certainly not copy were among the wider scottish public, not even that popular among snp voters, and he

therefore needs at the moment very much to impress themselves on the public as somebody who is perhaps a better politician than they think. the fact that this has happened, and the pictures today of what happened, as part of the worst thing for the snp today, those pictures of the police outside the party headquarters, outside the home of peter murrell, that will make it very difficult for him to establish himself in the minds of the public as a leader they want to follow. hannah rodger, who benefits from this, do you think? i hannah rodger, who benefits from this, do you think?— hannah rodger, who benefits from this, do you think? i think probably labour, this, do you think? i think probably labour. you — this, do you think? i think probably labour, you know, _ this, do you think? i think probably labour, you know, and _ this, do you think? i think probably labour, you know, and also - this, do you think? i think probably labour, you know, and also i - this, do you think? i think probably labour, you know, and also i think| labour, you know, and also i think that it— labour, you know, and also i think that if people are minded to vote for a _ that if people are minded to vote for a pro—independence party, that if people are minded to vote fora pro—independence party, then you are _ fora pro—independence party, then you are going to see potentially the greens_ you are going to see potentially the greens are — you are going to see potentially the greens are getting some of the vote, potentially _ greens are getting some of the vote, potentially alex salmond's alba party _ potentially alex salmond's alba party even potentially picking up some _ party even potentially picking up some votes. i am also interested to see is— some votes. i am also interested to see is we _ some votes. i am also interested to see is we will see membership of the snp coming down and maybe going across— snp coming down and maybe going across to _ snp coming down and maybe going across to some of these other parties. — across to some of these other parties, but i think in general,

labour, — parties, but i think in general, labour, we _ parties, but i think in general, labour, we are seeing the polls are rising. _ labour, we are seeing the polls are rising. john — labour, we are seeing the polls are rising, john is more of an expert than _ rising, john is more of an expert than me — rising, john is more of an expert than me on— rising, john is more of an expert than me on that, but the poles are rising _ than me on that, but the poles are rising in_ than me on that, but the poles are rising in support of labour, but we have _ rising in support of labour, but we have had _ rising in support of labour, but we have had the tories in westminster kind of— have had the tories in westminster kind of caught up in some sort of scandals — kind of caught up in some sort of scandals as— kind of caught up in some sort of scandals as well, sol kind of caught up in some sort of scandals as well, so i wouldn't be surprised — scandals as well, so i wouldn't be surprised if— scandals as well, so i wouldn't be surprised if labour really benefited from this _ surprised if labour really benefited from this situation. but surprised if labour really benefited from this situation.— from this situation. but do you think there _ from this situation. but do you think there is _ from this situation. but do you think there is a _ from this situation. but do you think there is a feeling - from this situation. but do you think there is a feeling now, i from this situation. but do you - think there is a feeling now, much as there was a feeling with labour for a long, long time, that actually it had gone unchallenged for too long, and do you think there's a sense in which the snp has gone unchallenged for too long? we talked about that during the campaign. i think yes, we did see that student the campaign, and we did see some issues _ the campaign, and we did see some issues in _ the campaign, and we did see some issues in terms ofjust transparency, and that kind of came with this _ transparency, and that kind of came with this idea that, you know, the snp was — with this idea that, you know, the snp was too big to fail, or it was beyond _ snp was too big to fail, or it was beyond being challenged. we saw that with membership figures, and they kind of— with membership figures, and they kind of misled journalists over

membership figures, too. you are sa in: , membership figures, too. you are saying. john. _ membership figures, too. you are saying. john. that _ membership figures, too. you are saying, john, that humza - membership figures, too. you are saying, john, that humza yousafl membership figures, too. you are i saying, john, that humza yousaf has only been formerly the lid of this party in the first minister of scotland for a week —— formally, suddenly purchased a do make it harderfor him to unite suddenly purchased a do make it harder for him to unite the party? in the second part of my question is, is it more likely now that nicola sturgeon will want to leave the stage? i nicola sturgeon will want to leave the state? ~' ., ~ the stage? i think it will make it more difficult, _ the stage? i think it will make it more difficult, because - the stage? i think it will make it more difficult, because some i the stage? i think it will make it more difficult, because some ofj more difficult, because some of those who were critical about the snp's those who were critical about the snp�*s finances, for example joanna cherry, snp�*s finances, for examplejoanna cherry, a snp�*s finances, for example joanna cherry, a long—standing critic of nicola sturgeon, so i think it'll make it more difficult to keep the party united. kate forbes will not stay quiet. she has a column in the national tomorrow, stay quiet. she has a column in the nationaltomorrow, i stay quiet. she has a column in the national tomorrow, i think it will be compulsory reading in scotland. i think the honest truth is we did not expect nicola to stay anyway, but i think we should exclude why this story matters south of the border. if labour doesn't indeed benefit, and they are already only six points behind the snp, with that kind of

lead, perhaps the labour party might pick up another dozen, 15 seats. as the labour party can get those kind of seats in scotland, the that they will need across the uk as a whole goes down by about three points or so. so sir keir starmer this evening is looking at this and wondering whether or not it will increase his chances of getting an overall majority at the next election. thank ou both majority at the next election. thank you both are — majority at the next election. thank you both are very — majority at the next election. thank you both are very much, _ majority at the next election. thank you both are very much, and - majority at the next election. thank you both are very much, and now. majority at the next election. thank you both are very much, and now back to you in london, victoria. thank you, because they command to your guests. this is the 93—metre long "mega barge" which the government announced today would be used to accomodate more than 500 asylum seekers. the three—storey vessel will be stationed in portland port in dorset, under plans to reduce the numbers of asylum seekers housed in hotels, which costs £6 million a day. the plans have been criticised by people who don't want it in their area including the local conservative mp, and by some who say it's inhumane. this barge will only be used for adult male asylum seekers, say the government. in the meantime, another element

of the illegal migration bill is coming under scrutiny — the fact that children with their families arriving by irregular means would be detained. the return of detention of children with families is a u—turn on a policy which was passed into law under the coalition government in 2014. the home office has also confirmed it might be necessary to use force on children in family groups, if a family is resisting removal. "stop the boats" is one of the government's slogans, because it wants to reduce the number of people coming to the uk on boats. here's a chart which shows how the numbers have increased dramatically over the last few years, with the data showing almost 16,000 people crossing last year. let's go back to early march, when the government unveiled its new illegal migration bill, which is currently going through parliament.

it says the bill will ensure those arriving here illegally — such as on a boat — would be removed from the uk, and also blocked from returning or claiming british citizenship in the future. they would either be sent back to their home country or to what the government deems to be a safe third country such as rwanda. it says some may be detained before being deported, and that could include families with children. but it's caused a row, with even people on its own side of the chamber, such as the former pm theresa may, saying it won't be the deterrent the government wants it to be. the un went as far as saying the bill would "amount to an asylum ban." and we have had additional details from the home office as well, haven't we?

yeah, so the home office provided some more detail on the bill in relation to children which has proved to be very controversial. it's said that those under 18 could be sent back to their home country. this has alarmed some human rights charities and human rights lawyers. the fact sheet says, using force on children in family groups may unfortunately be necessary if a family is resisting removal. it goes on to say, the law already allows immigration officers and dt need custom officers to use reasonable force to exercise their powers, and this is not age restricted —— detainee custom officers. some human rights lawyers have accused the government of having "no moral compass." for the government, this is about reducing the numbers — putting people off from making that perilous journey that has

already cost lives, and it hopes this bill — which as i said is still going through parliament — will do exactly that. tonight it told us, "these changes will be compliant with our obligations under international law." using force on children in family groups may unfortunately be necessary if a family is resisting removal, but this is the absolute last resort, and kept under review." thank you very much. we asked the government for a minister to interview, and they said no—one was available. they suggested a supporter of their illegal migration bill is steven woolfe, a former ukip mep who now runs an immigration thinktank. i want to talk to you first about the detention of children with families, and then about the announcement today. is itjustified that nine years after banning it, the government is now going to start detaining children with families again? i detaining children with families auain? ., ., , again? i would have said it is surprising — again? i would have said it is surprising that _ again? i would have said it is surprising that they - again? i would have said it is surprising that they have - again? i would have said it is i surprising that they have come again? i would have said it is - surprising that they have come down this line. i may support much of

what is happening in the illegal immigration bill, that does not mean i support everything the government does. 50 i support everything the government does. , i support everything the government does, , , ., | support everything the government does. , ., , | support everything the government does. , , ., , does. so is this not “ustified? i would not * does. so is this not “ustified? i would not say h does. so is this not “ustified? i would not say it _ does. so is this not “ustified? i would not say it is h does. so is this notjustified? i would not say it is not - would not say it is notjustified, because if you look at family law cases, criminal law cases, obviously the use of force is often used against children and family members, and i do think it is important to put that in the context of the kind of global legal enforcement situation we had. i of global legal enforcement situation we had.— of global legal enforcement situation we had. ., ., ., ~ situation we had. i am not talking about before _ situation we had. i am not talking about before spit _ situation we had. i am not talking about before spit at _ situation we had. i am not talking about before spit at the _ situation we had. i am not talking about before spit at the moment, just the principle of detaining children with families. this just the principle of detaining children with families.- children with families. this is where i have _ children with families. this is where i have a _ children with families. this is where i have a slight - children with families. this is i where i have a slight difficulty, i was surprised that the bill added, because generally the impression given during the course of a preparation for the bill and pushing through parliament is that they would be looking at unaccompanied children and young children, with theirfamilies. in a different children and young children, with their families. in a different way to that of young adults. and i think most of the public would be comfortable with, because when you look at the research we have done, around 76 to 77% of all those coming

across the channel between the ages of 20 and a5. so when you look at the small numbers coming over, i would have thought it would be more sensible, more prudent, and perhaps more moral to have a different approach, but i can understand why the government is doing that. just to be clear. _ the government is doing that. just to be clear, they say, unaccompanied children will not be detained. do you think it is justified? i do children will not be detained. do you think it isjustified? you think it is “ustified? i do not, i do not think— you think it isjustified? i do not, i do not think it _ you think it isjustified? i do not, i do not think it is _ you think it isjustified? i do not, i do not think it is necessary. - i do not think it is necessary. as you said — i do not think it is necessary. as you said in — i do not think it is necessary. as you said in the introduction, david cameron, — you said in the introduction, david cameron, the previous conservative prime _ cameron, the previous conservative prime minister, did not think it was justified _ prime minister, did not think it was justified to — prime minister, did not think it was justified. to lose a mac, former conservative prime minister, is very concerned _ conservative prime minister, is very concerned about this. let's remember who these _ concerned about this. let's remember who these families and children are. this could _ who these families and children are. this could be a family from afghanistan that is fleeing the taliban— afghanistan that is fleeing the taliban because of death threats facing _ taliban because of death threats facing persecution, it could be a family— facing persecution, it could be a family from iran fleeing beatings and death threats, or a family from sudan _ and death threats, or a family from sudan or— and death threats, or a family from sudan or eritrea clean bombs and

bullets _ sudan or eritrea clean bombs and bullets because of a civil war. what this bill_ bullets because of a civil war. what this bill would do is place them in detentiod — this bill would do is place them in detention. —— fleeing bombs and bullets — detention. —— fleeing bombs and bullets. and as you have explained, it could _ bullets. and as you have explained, it could result in force being used against _ it could result in force being used against them to remove them from this country. i do not think that is who we _ this country. i do not think that is who we are — this country. i do not think that is who we are as a nation. i think our nation _ who we are as a nation. i think our nation wants — who we are as a nation. i think our nation wants to treat people who have _ nation wants to treat people who have faced war and persecution with compassion and humanity. if have faced war and persecution with compassion and humanity.— compassion and humanity. if that deters them _ compassion and humanity. if that deters them getting _ compassion and humanity. if that deters them getting on _ compassion and humanity. if that deters them getting on a - compassion and humanity. if that deters them getting on a boat - compassion and humanity. if that| deters them getting on a boat and crossing the channel, where they may drown, that is why the government say it is a good thing. the government _ say it is a good thing. the government because - say it is a good thing. the government because my own evidence does not _ government because my own evidence does not suggest that there is a clear— does not suggest that there is a clear case — does not suggest that there is a clear case that this will act as a deterrent _ clear case that this will act as a deterrent. but actually, i think this is— deterrent. but actually, i think this is about how we treat people with fairness and compassion and humanity — with fairness and compassion and humani . ., ., ., ., with fairness and compassion and humani. ., ., ., ., ., with fairness and compassion and humani . ., ., ., ., humanity. you do not want to see --eole humanity. you do not want to see people getting _ humanity. you do not want to see people getting on _ humanity. you do not want to see people getting on a _ humanity. you do not want to see people getting on a boat, - humanity. you do not want to see people getting on a boat, do - humanity. you do not want to see | people getting on a boat, do you? no, i want to see people given safe routes _ no, i want to see people given safe routes so _ no, i want to see people given safe routes so that they can come here without _ routes so that they can come here without having to lose their lives, but i _ without having to lose their lives, but i also — without having to lose their lives, but i also want to see people treated — but i also want to see people treated fairly and with compassion. when _ treated fairly and with compassion. when people fled ukraine because of

the horrendous violence and war there. _ the horrendous violence and war there. we — the horrendous violence and war there, we did not treat families in there, we did not treat families in the way— there, we did not treat families in the way that the government, who is now proposing to treat families from countries _ now proposing to treat families from countries such as afghanistan and iran, _ countries such as afghanistan and iran, or— countries such as afghanistan and iran, or otherwar—torn countries such as afghanistan and iran, or other war—torn countries such— iran, or other war—torn countries such as — iran, or other war—torn countries such as syria _ iran, or other war—torn countries such as syria and sudan and eritrea, we showed — such as syria and sudan and eritrea, we showed them compassion, we welcomed — we showed them compassion, we welcomed them. we treated them as fellow— welcomed them. we treated them as fellow humans, and we gave them a welcoming — fellow humans, and we gave them a welcoming. we should be giving people _ welcoming. we should be giving people who are coming here from other— people who are coming here from other countries absolutely a fair hearing — other countries absolutely a fair hearing and showing them compassion and dignity, too. so is hearing and showing them compassion and dignity. too-— and dignity, too. so is that everybody _ and dignity, too. so is that everybody from _ and dignity, too. so is that everybody from any - and dignity, too. so is that l everybody from any country and dignity, too. so is that - everybody from any country who and dignity, too. so is that _ everybody from any country who wants to come here? we everybody from any country who wants to come here?— to come here? we should give them a fair hearing. — to come here? we should give them a fair hearing, recognise _ to come here? we should give them a fair hearing, recognise that _ to come here? we should give them a fair hearing, recognise that if- to come here? we should give them a fair hearing, recognise that if they - fair hearing, recognise that if they have a _ fair hearing, recognise that if they have a well—founded fear of persecution, absolutely we welcome them as— persecution, absolutely we welcome them as refugees come in the way we have done _ them as refugees come in the way we have done for generations. what them as refugees come in the way we have done for generations.— have done for generations. what are the circumstances _ have done for generations. what are the circumstances that _ have done for generations. what are the circumstances that you - have done for generations. what are the circumstances that you can - have done for generations. what are the circumstances that you can see i the circumstances that you can see that force might be used against children? . �* , that force might be used against children? ., �* , ., that force might be used against children? ., �*, ., ., children? that's one of the questions _ children? that's one of the questions i _ children? that's one of the questions i was _ children? that's one of the questions i was trying - children? that's one of the questions i was trying to i children? that's one of the i questions i was trying to think about on the train coming up today. what kind of scenario? abs, about on the train coming up today. what kind of scenario?—

what kind of scenario? a refusal by either the mother _ what kind of scenario? a refusal by either the mother or _ what kind of scenario? a refusal by either the mother or father - what kind of scenario? a refusal by either the mother or father to - what kind of scenario? a refusal by| either the mother or father to abide by the border force's requirements that they perhaps leave the hotel, that they perhaps leave the hotel, that they perhaps leave the hotel, that they are pushed towards a plane to be removed to rwanda, and you have seen situations where that has occurred in the past. so i think thatis occurred in the past. so i think that is the kind of level of situation that these families would be forced into. i do not think it would be if you are moved from one hotel to another, i do not think thatis hotel to another, i do not think that is the type of thing that would occur, so i would imagine it is only when they are being looked at has been removed from the country. and are you comfortable with that? and are you comfortable with that? asa as a humanitarian, i believe this country has the right attitude towards treating people fairly, but as the father of a nine—year—old, i have always felt that we have to look at that different way, and actually treat children and their parents in a different scenario. if you're looking at the vast majority, the adults, there may be circumstances where suddenly that is a different case altogether, and i do still think that we treat people

fairly. do still think that we treat people fairl . , , fairly. under this bill, unaccompanied - fairly. under this bill, i unaccompanied children fairly. under this bill, - unaccompanied children can be fairly. under this bill, _ unaccompanied children can be sent to a safe third country, like the one that for example, or their country of origin. if that is deemed to be safe. are you comfortable with sending a child, possibly a teenager, a young adult, to a safe country that they have zero connection with?— country that they have zero connection with? no, i am not comfortable. _ connection with? no, i am not comfortable. we _ connection with? no, i am not comfortable. we are _ connection with? no, i am not comfortable. we are to - connection with? no, i am not comfortable. we are to the . connection with? no, i am not - comfortable. we are to the refugee council _ comfortable. we are to the refugee council work with unaccompanied children— council work with unaccompanied children but come here, we support them _ children but come here, we support them and _ children but come here, we support them and we help them through the process— them and we help them through the process of— them and we help them through the process of applying for asylum, and then going — process of applying for asylum, and then going on to rebuild their lives — then going on to rebuild their lives. many, many children have come here alone, _ lives. many, many children have come here alone, they have gone through the system, they have been recognised as refugees, and supported to stay and gone on to contribute — supported to stay and gone on to contribute to this country. some extraordinary stories of people coming — extraordinary stories of people coming over adversity —— overcoming adversity— coming over adversity —— overcoming adversity and — coming over adversity —— overcoming adversity and trauma. we should continue — adversity and trauma. we should continue to do that, there is no reason — continue to do that, there is no reason to— continue to do that, there is no reason to change the approach we have had — reason to change the approach we have had in— reason to change the approach we have had in place for many decades now _

have had in place for many decades now. , , , ., ., . now. very briefly, the announcement today about — now. very briefly, the announcement today about the _ now. very briefly, the announcement today about the barge _ now. very briefly, the announcement today about the barge in _ now. very briefly, the announcement today about the barge in dorset, - today about the barge in dorset, aduu today about the barge in dorset, adult males will be housed there. your response to that, briefly? i do not think it — your response to that, briefly? i do not think it is _ your response to that, briefly? i do not think it is an _ your response to that, briefly? i do not think it is an appropriate place to put— not think it is an appropriate place to put anyone who has had to come here fleeing and claiming asylum. where _ here fleeing and claiming asylum. where would you house them? i think we should house _ where would you house them? i think we should house them _ where would you house them? i think we should house them in _ where would you house them? i think we should house them in the - we should house them in the community, they will we housed ukrainians— community, they will we housed ukrainians when they came here. and our ukrainians when they came here. your response ukrainians when they came here. jifuc your response to the ukrainians when they came here. elic your response to the budget announcement today? ibis your response to the budget announcement today? as you look at the un, they — announcement today? as you look at the un, they have _ announcement today? as you look at the un, they have accepted - announcement today? as you look at the un, they have accepted that - announcement today? as you look at the un, they have accepted that you| the un, they have accepted that you can have tents and other forms of accommodation for asylum seekers across the globe and for those who are refugees. 50 across the globe and for those who are refugees-— are refugees. so yes to the barge? yes, it are refugees. so yes to the barge? yes. it does _ are refugees. so yes to the barge? yes, it does not _ are refugees. so yes to the barge? yes, it does not break— are refugees. so yes to the barge? yes, it does not break any - yes, it does not break any international laws, it does not break the convention, and is the governance is, i think we have to look at reducing the costs. thank ou both look at reducing the costs. thank you both very _ look at reducing the costs. thank you both very much. _ we know what happens to government critics in countries like iran, china and russia — many land up injail, and in some cases, pay with their lives. you might have thought that those who've managed to flee to britain would be safe. in fact, threats against them, as well as the british lawyers and journalists who work with them,

seem to be growing. in february, iran international tv — which has long been critical of the iran government — closed its london offices after police felt unable to provide protection to its staff. british—based lawyers and activists have received deaths threats, and a reporterfor the bbc�*s persian staff told this programme that she's received half a million threats on social media. all this comes amid claims that the government is doing too little to help stop the abuse. mike thomson reports. the iranian government must have been delighted after years protection for staff there, as well as for people working

for other companies nearby. working near your offices. how do you think that's going to leave other foreign dissidents living in this country feeling? they, like me, they don't feel safe any more here in london. threats to iranian journalists and dissidents living in the uk have shot up since the outbreak of widespread protests in iran, sparked by the death in custody of mahsa amini last september. my parents were invited for interrogations. their passports were confiscated, and then throughout these years, i have received several death threats, rape threats.

but it increased in september as the result of the protests and our coverage of it. since the beginning of the protests, i had received over half a million threats on twitter alone. i had to lay low because the advice was that we just need to disappear for a while for the threats to go down. in september 1978, dissident bulgarian writer georgi markov was walking along london's waterloo bridge he stopped, looked around and saw a man grabbing an umbrella before rushing away. mr markov had been poisoned. a tiny suspected ricin cartridge had been inserted into the back of his leg. no longer could overseas dissidents assume they were safe in britain.

scotland yard is investigating the suspected poisoning of a russian dissident living in britain. russia has been behind some of the most brazen strikes against british based dissidents, such as the poisoning in 2006 of alexander litvinenko, a former secret service agent who had fled to the uk after criticising president putin. he died in london, weeks after drinking tea laced with a deadly radioactive compound. then came the attempted murder in 2018. a former russian military officer and double agent, sergei skripal, and his daughter yulia, both poisoned in salisbury with the novichok nerve agent. sometimes the abusers of foreign critics here don't even bother to hide what they're doing. in october, staff at china's consulate in manchester dragged an anti beijing protester by his hair into the mission's grounds, where he was beaten before

being rescued with the help of police and other demonstrators. being a human rights lawyer... uk based lawyers who act for foreign dissidents are now also being targeted with violent threats and other forms of intimidation. i and one of my colleagues, over a period of many months, have had mysterious fake calls appearing on our whatsapp, particularly when we're alone, and alone at night, indicating that someone may know that we're alone or only with one other person. i've had rape threats, death threats, dismemberment threats. barrister keelin gallagher believes that in a rush to secure more overseas trade deals, government ministers are increasingly putting economics before ethics. the uk government currently has a policy of pragmatic engagement with china, hong kong. we've seen james cleverly shaking hands with his counterpart at the munich security conference. we see there's a ministerial visit in a number of weeks from hong kong coming here to the uk.

and it seems to me, and to my colleagues, that it is vital that the uk does not roll out the red carpet for a state which is using the long arm of the state to target lawyers, members of parliament, professors, dissidents and others. the government told newsnight... yet, despite the ongoing threats both to themselves and theirfamilies, some refuse to be silenced. the threats that i'm experiencing is nothing compared to whatjournalists inside the country are going through. we need them to tell us what's going on. then they get into trouble. many of them are in prison right now, and i think it's ourjob to carry the torch. otherwise, these stories won't be told and people won't be made aware of what's going on inside the country.

yes, it's difficult. yes, i received death threats. yes, ifeel threatened, but i'm not in prison and i'm not being tortured. and until that day, i have to carry on. for people like these fighting brutal repression at home, it would at least be some comfort to know that there are still places where people can speak their minds in safety. mike thompson. the uk today blocked russia using the un to broadcast its meeting on the forced "evacuation" of ukrainian children to russia. russia invited maria lvova—belova, their commissionerfor children's rights. the international criminal court issued an arrest warrant for her and president putin last month, accusing them of

illegally deporting thousands of children from ukraine and the unlawful transfer of people to russia from ukraine since russia launched its full—scale invasion last year. the international criminal court put out an arrest warrant for president putin and maria lvova—belova, russia's commission of the children's rights, accusing them of the legal deportation of thousands of children from ukraine to russia and the occupied territories. today, maria lvova—belova spoke at an informal meeting of the un security council, trying to portray russia as a country that evacuated children from the conflict zone. britain not only blocked the un of this meeting but also the uk ambassador to the un refused to participate. the uk mission to the un tweeted... russia's commission of the

children's rights said she hadn't received any documents from the international criminal court and she didn't understand what she was accused of. translation: {elite didn't understand what she was accused of. translation: give us the facts and let's — accused of. translation: give us the facts and let's deal _ accused of. translation: give us the facts and let's deal with _ accused of. translation: give us the facts and let's deal with them. - facts and let's deal with them. while it all looks like a father and is completely fake, it's not clear. the deputy prosecutor general of ukraine spoke to newsnight tonight. translation: ii ukraine spoke to newsnight tonight. translation:— ukraine spoke to newsnight tonight. translation: if maria lvova-belova believes that — translation: if maria lvova-belova believes that she _ translation: if maria lvova-belova believes that she is _ translation: if maria lvova-belova believes that she is innocent, - translation: if maria lvova-belova believes that she is innocent, if - believes that she is innocent, if she thinks that charges against her are unclear, she can prove her innocence in the international criminal court.— innocence in the international criminal court. there are special procedures- _ criminal court. there are special procedures. since _ criminal court. there are special procedures. since the _ criminal court. there are special procedures. since the full - criminal court. there are special procedures. since the full scale | criminal court. there are special i procedures. since the full scale of ukraine a yearago procedures. since the full scale of ukraine a year ago by russia over 19,000 ukrainian children have been taken to russia, according to the ukrainian authorities. translation: there are terrible situations when kids who actually have parents are transferred to russia. they are separated. families are getting

forcefully divided. the ukrainian kids are sent to the russian federation to other families and their real parents are left in infiltration camps. these are really dramatic situations. those kids are made orphans artificially. i dramatic situations. those kids are made orphans artificially.— made orphans artificially. i have been speaking _ made orphans artificially. i have been speaking to _ made orphans artificially. i have been speaking to ukraine's - been speaking to ukraine's ambassador to the un and i asked him what he thought about the fact that the uk blocked russia from using the un to broadcast its meeting. i think that the uk did the right thing. i would like to avail of this opportunity to say that i am enjoying the great cooperation with the uk mission here in the united nations, and i think that the uk mission is one of the most principled missions. what is the united nations doing about trying to get these kids back? well, first of all, let me tell you the fact that the whole united nations system and many conventional mechanisms that are there for the kids, they proved to be not fit to address