and across eastern scotland, central and eastern england, maybe if you practice of mist in western scotland and parts of northern ireland. overnight temperatures of eight or 9 degrees. tomorrow, starting with a lot of cloud in the east but there is a better chance of seeing that breakaway from eastern wales across the midlands, sunshine coming out in the midlands, sunshine coming out in the south—east but again, these western areas of the uk will have the best sunshine and the highest temperatures. quite widely reaching the low to mid 20s in the warmest places but if cloud lingers around the east coast, it will be a bit cooler. high levels of grass pollen so for those allergic to it, tomorrow could be pretty sleazy. on thursday, it is dry again, probably more sunshine —— pretty sneezy. some cloud lingering in scotland and north—east england which could keep things cool but otherwise things in the low 20s, around 2a degrees in parts of the west. we start to see a change in the weather then, friday

is similar, dry and sunny again, but it gets more humid by the weekend and as the humidity levels rise, we are likely to see some showers and thunderstorms breaking up and for some it will bring the first significant rainfall we have seen forfour significant rainfall we have seen for four weeks. thanks, chris. and that's bbc news at ten. there's more analysis of the day's main stories on newsnight with victoria derbyshire, which is just 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.

rishi sunak is tonight on his way to meetjoe biden in washington. is the threat posed by artificial intelligence to humanity now at the top his agenda?

as the prime minister prepares to make the case for britain to be a global leader in policing ai, we'll ask if it might actually suit big tech to warn us about the dangers. also tonight: another british woman has made allegations of sexual violence against andrew tate. she speaks exclusively to this programme. whilst we were having sex he put his hand on my throat and strangled me until i'd lost consciousness. he was still having sex with me when i kind of came back around again. the 30—year—old has become the fourth british woman to join a planned civil action against the former kickboxer. we'll also talk to her lawyer. and kyiv and moscow have accused each other�*s forces of destroying a dam in a russian—controlled area of ukraine. how much do we really know about the incident? our diplomatic editor mark urban unpicks the evidence. and prince harry doesn't hold back

as he finally gets his day in court accusing mirror group newspapers of phone hacking. he lashes out at the press generally and former mirror editor piers morgan in particular. the man who dramatised the vardy—rooney trial for tv gives his verdict. good evening. we start tonight with details of an issue likely to dominate the headlines as the rest of this week unfolds. it's a sign perhaps of how quickly the world is changing — not only has rishi sunak�*s government apparently recognised that some of the thinking in a white paper it published just weeks ago for the regulation of artificial intelligence might already be out of date, but the prime minister is now also hoping to use a key meeting with president biden tomorrow to try to cement both a new global approach to the fast—moving tech, and the uk's own role within it. as we come on air tonight, mr sunak is in the air on his way to washington. yesterday, one of his key advisors

on the issue warned that left unchecked, ai could develop the ability to kill humans — some believe within a time frame of just a few years. so, how real is that threat, and if there's to be a role for a global policeman of ai, how likely is mr sunak to win the argument that the uk should be central to those plans? nick and kate are here to look at the politics and the tech side of things. so, nick, is al likely to dominate when he gets there? 50, nick, is al likely to dominate when he gets there?— 50, nick, is al likely to dominate when he gets there? clearly rishi sunak and president _ when he gets there? clearly rishi sunak and president biden - when he gets there? clearly rishi sunak and president biden will i when he gets there? clearly rishi| sunak and president biden will be talking about ukraine after the collapse of the dam. in the last 90 minutes also the prime minister has tweeted a picture of the traditional media briefing on the plane and in that briefing he said that if russia are intentionally blew up the dam that it would represent a new low. in the last three minutes we've had a downing street briefing setting out the trip and talking about how the prime minister wants to reenergise and enhance the economic relationship between the uk and the

us and talking about how everyday innovations in science and are unlocking new possibilities. downing street is very much hoping that al street is very much hoping that ai will be at the top of the agenda because rishi sunak has big ideas for a big uk role. there is talk about how the uk could host perhaps about how the uk could host perhaps a global ai summit later this year and that possibly the uk could sort of host the global body that would oversee ai. there are two big political challenges for rishi sunak on the global stage. firstly can the uk compete with the formal dialogue between the us and the eu on this? and is the uk being consistent? not that long ago we where hearing about the uk taking a light touch regulatory approach using those brexit freedoms. is the uk now singing the same tune?- brexit freedoms. is the uk now singing the same tune? hate, people miaht singing the same tune? hate, people might reasonably _ singing the same tune? hate, people might reasonably wonder _ singing the same tune? hate, people might reasonably wonder how - singing the same tune? hate, people

might reasonably wonder how you - singing the same tune? hate, people might reasonably wonder how you go | might reasonably wonder how you go from chatgpt, to ai potentially killing humans? bi from chatgpt, to ai potentially killing humans?— from chatgpt, to ai potentially killing humans? ai isn't 'ust these larae killing humans? ai isn't 'ust these large language h killing humans? ai isn't 'ust these large language models_ killing humans? ai isn'tjust these large language models we - killing humans? ai isn'tjust these large language models we have i killing humans? ai isn'tjust these - large language models we have heard so much _ large language models we have heard so much about. it is any simulation of any— so much about. it is any simulation of any aspect of human intelligence. photographic similar agents, of any aspect of human intelligence. photographic similaragents, some photographic similar agents, some video_ photographic similaragents, some video game characters, and there are different_ video game characters, and there are different risks, some of which are here _ different risks, some of which are here now— different risks, some of which are here now and some in the far future. the future _ here now and some in the far future. the future risks are grabbing the headlines. most of these end of the world _ headlines. most of these end of the world fears have raised the idea that aztec melody develops we may move _ that aztec melody develops we may move closer to artificial general intelligence which can't just move closer to artificial general intelligence which can'tjust mimic one aspect — intelligence which can'tjust mimic one aspect of human intelligence but all of them. it is far from certain when _ all of them. it is far from certain when or— all of them. it is far from certain when or even if that's possible but let's say— when or even if that's possible but let's say it — when or even if that's possible but let's say it is in the decades to come — let's say it is in the decades to come the _ let's say it is in the decades to come. the speculative risk here is what _ come. the speculative risk here is what that— come. the speculative risk here is what that general intelligence could do. ., what that general intelligence could do. . . ., what that general intelligence could l d0-_ sometimes do. 0k, what could it do? sometimes ai takes on — do. 0k, what could it do? sometimes ai takes on unexpected _ do. 0k, what could it do? sometimes ai takes on unexpected goals - do. 0k, what could it do? sometimes ai takes on unexpected goals to - ai takes on unexpected goals to reach _ ai takes on unexpected goals to reach two — ai takes on unexpected goals to reach two routes to take the goal set for _ reach two routes to take the goal set for them, so one of them were

set for them, so one of them were set the _ set for them, so one of them were set the goat— set for them, so one of them were set the goal of winning at tetris and when — set the goal of winning at tetris and when it was about to lose it started — and when it was about to lose it started pausing the game to avoid losing _ started pausing the game to avoid losing. the feeling is that advanced general intelligence could stop itself _ general intelligence could stop itself being turned off or choose a dangerous — itself being turned off or choose a dangerous route to achieve the goal that humans couldn't stop. while it's a _ that humans couldn't stop. while it's a long — that humans couldn't stop. while it's a long way from certain the argument _ it's a long way from certain the argument is that it's better to be prepared — argument is that it's better to be prepared. there are fears that humans — prepared. there are fears that humans could use powerful ai in the future _ humans could use powerful ai in the future to— humans could use powerful ai in the future to do— humans could use powerful ai in the future to do bad things. the future risks— future to do bad things. the future risks are _ future to do bad things. the future risks are grabbing the headlines but here and _ risks are grabbing the headlines but here and now there are pressing questions — here and now there are pressing questions about things like copyright involved in making these models, _ copyright involved in making these models, the biases they contain and whether— models, the biases they contain and whether they can be used now to spread _ whether they can be used now to spread disinformation. in whether they can be used now to spread disinformation.— whether they can be used now to spread disinformation. in terms of the position _ spread disinformation. in terms of the position it _ spread disinformation. in terms of the position it is _ spread disinformation. in terms of the position it is moving _ spread disinformation. in terms of the position it is moving rapidly? i the position it is moving rapidly? there has been a change in the atmosphere in whitehall in recent weeks. there was a white paper on al released raised on the 29th of march talking about the transformative potential of ai, how it was already delivering fantastic social and economic benefits. it talked about

risks, about the dangerous physical harm, the danger of undermining national—security but then it talked about not rushing to legislate in this area and using our brexit freedoms to create our own regulatory framework to turn the uk into a ai superpower. i understand there was a meeting in downing street yesterday for people who are interested in this area and the feeling was that the white paper was a bit too much on the sunnyside, although fundamentally very important work was the view. the feeling that downing street wasn't closely involved enough in the drawing up of the white paper and the fundamental view is that things are just moving at the most incredible pace and that is why there's a change in the view. the view of downing street is that fundamentally ai represents a great opportunity for the uk. haifa fundamentally ai represents a great

opportunity for the uk.— opportunity for the uk. how is the industry reacting? _ opportunity for the uk. how is the industry reacting? interesting - industry reacting? interesting watching people _ industry reacting? interesting watching people who - industry reacting? interesting watching people who run - industry reacting? interesting. watching people who run these industry reacting? interesting - watching people who run these ai companies signing letters saying we should _ companies signing letters saying we should litigate the risk, essentially their product. in terms of future _ essentially their product. in terms of future risks, it is a short—term pr gain — of future risks, it is a short—term pr gain because it makes their systems— pr gain because it makes their systems are powerful and makes them look responsible but some suggest the companies are trying to frame what _ the companies are trying to frame what regulation is brought in. take the people — what regulation is brought in. take the people who run chatgpt, the owner _ the people who run chatgpt, the owner suggested an international agency— owner suggested an international agency that licenses ai over a certain— agency that licenses ai over a certain threshold. some suggested that hurdles like licences could be advantageous to these companies, bringing _ advantageous to these companies, bringing up the drawbridge behind them, _ bringing up the drawbridge behind them, entrenching advantage and means— them, entrenching advantage and means small companies and open source _ means small companies and open source products cannot compete. an exampte — source products cannot compete. an exampte of— source products cannot compete. an example of this framing is that the same _ example of this framing is that the same companies who were actively arguing _ same companies who were actively arguing for— same companies who were actively arguing for future regulation are pushing — arguing for future regulation are pushing back on the short—term risks _ pushing back on the short—term risks. open ai last week said they may putt— risks. open ai last week said they may pull their technology out of europe — may pull their technology out of europe over regulations being

developed there which could require them to— developed there which could require them to disclose copyrighted material that helps them develop systems — material that helps them develop systems. all the regulation is a batancing — systems. all the regulation is a balancing act. once being highlighted is this idea of please regulate us, it is dangerous, but don't _ regulate us, it is dangerous, but don't do — regulate us, it is dangerous, but don't do that.— to discuss this, let's talk to professor nick bostrom, author of superintelligence and founding director of the future of humanity institute, and professor dame wendy hall, computer scientist at the university of southampton and member of the government's ai council. professor hall, the eu started regulating on this two years ago. the big ai companies are all in the us. why would anyone choose britain to be the centre for regulation? igrgfe to be the centre for regulation? we can be to be the centre for regulation? - can be the honest broker. we had the problem that none of the companies here and good be fighting about

where open ai could land in europe, whether it is the uk or france. we are going to want to use the companies but in terms of us being an honest broker about regulation, europe takes the lead on data protection, civil liberties, human rights, and it absolutely could take the lead in terms of how we regulate across the world. nobody has mentioned china yet. china has these technologies and we have to bring them to the table. i’iiii technologies and we have to bring them to the table.— technologies and we have to bring them to the table. i'll come back to china because _ them to the table. i'll come back to china because i'm _ them to the table. i'll come back to china because i'm going _ them to the table. i'll come back to china because i'm going to - them to the table. i'll come back to j china because i'm going to mention it to you in a moment. you've been moaning about the risks of ai for years. —— youth been warning about the risks. i years. -- youth been warning about the risks. ~' ,. ., the risks. i think the scenarios that used _ the risks. i think the scenarios that used to _ the risks. i think the scenarios that used to be _ the risks. i think the scenarios that used to be dismissed - the risks. i think the scenarios that used to be dismissed as l that used to be dismissed as science—fiction or very futuristic have _ science—fiction or very futuristic have now— science—fiction or very futuristic have now started being taken more seriously— have now started being taken more seriously by the mainstream ai research — seriously by the mainstream ai research community and over the last

three _ research community and over the last three months by policymakers. progress— three months by policymakers. progress over the last couple of years. _ progress over the last couple of years, these large language models, truly impressive and we are at the point _ truly impressive and we are at the point where it is very hard to be confident— point where it is very hard to be confident about what we will and will not — confident about what we will and will not be able to do one year from now, _ will not be able to do one year from now. two— will not be able to do one year from now, two years from now. it is good that people — now, two years from now. it is good that people are waking up. i think we have _ that people are waking up. i think we have kind of wasted a couple of decades— we have kind of wasted a couple of decades where we could have been doing _ decades where we could have been doing our— decades where we could have been doing our homework and preparing ourselves— doing our homework and preparing ourselves for this but better late than never. ourselves for this but better late than never-— ourselves for this but better late than never. ~ , ., , ., than never. why has the government woken u - , than never. why has the government woken up. as — than never. why has the government woken up. as you — than never. why has the government woken up, as you put _ than never. why has the government woken up, as you put it? _ than never. why has the government woken up, as you put it? what's- woken up, as you put it? what's happened over the last couple of months? i happened over the last couple of months? ~ �* . happened over the last couple of months? ~ �* , ., , happened over the last couple of months? ~ 3 ., , . months? i think it's partially 'ust how impressive i months? i think it's partially 'ust how impressive these i months? i think it's partiallyjust how impressive these current. months? i think it's partiallyjust how impressive these current al | how impressive these current ai modets — how impressive these current ai models are. at the visceral level when _ models are. at the visceral level when people interact with chatgpt and these large models it makes it reat~ _ and these large models it makes it reat~ and _ and these large models it makes it real. and also the fact that now a lot of— real. and also the fact that now a lot of the — real. and also the fact that now a lot of the ai leaders including chief— lot of the ai leaders including chief executives of these big ai

labs chief executives of these big ai tabs and — chief executives of these big ai labs and a lot of hundreds of ai professors have started speaking up and they— professors have started speaking up and they are effectively calling for policymakers to get involved, which is quite _ policymakers to get involved, which is quite crucial. often people in new technology want to be left alone and get _ new technology want to be left alone and get regulators off their backs but now we have a situation of active effort to try and get policymakers's attention and that has contributed.— policymakers's attention and that has contributed. professor hall, you will have heard _ has contributed. professor hall, you will have heard kate _ has contributed. professor hall, you will have heard kate talking - has contributed. professor hall, you will have heard kate talking about . will have heard kate talking about the theory that perhaps big tech companies are warning every day about the existential threat to humanity in the future perhaps to distract from some of the current issues right now which involve copyright or bias within ai. absolutely, they don't have business models yet and it is great pr on behalf of the ai companies to say, regulate us, when they are putting the case about how to regulate them. we need independent advice. the

government need independent advice. there was a picture of rishi sunak talking to the bros, and he needs balanced advice about what to do otherwise the industry could be regulating itself. would that not be good? ida. industry could be regulating itself. would that not be good?— would that not be good? no, they would be regulating _ would that not be good? no, they would be regulating in _ would that not be good? no, they would be regulating in terms - would that not be good? no, they would be regulating in terms of i would that not be good? no, they i would be regulating in terms of what works for them. i've written about this in my book, the geopolitics of cyberspace, that the companies in silicon valley lobby washington to get the rules and regulations that help them to grow as companies, it is market forces led. in europe, we can't do that, as it is human rights and data protection lead, which is a good balance. this and data protection lead, which is a good balance-— good balance. this was the government _ good balance. this was the government position i good balance. this was the government position in i good balance. this was the government position in the good balance. this was the i government position in the white paper, why can't we use the data

protection rules we already have, the privacy rules we have come and apply them to ai? fargfe the privacy rules we have come and apply them to ai?— the privacy rules we have come and apply them to al?— apply them to ai? we can. the eu, with their al _ apply them to ai? we can. the eu, with their ai act, _ apply them to ai? we can. the eu, with their ai act, they _ apply them to ai? we can. the eu, with their ai act, they are - apply them to ai? we can. the eu, with their ai act, they are going i apply them to ai? we can. the eu, with their ai act, they are going to | with their ai act, they are going to statutory law. we are arguing that we are ready to do that yet. there is a headline everyday that makes us think we're all going to be dead tomorrow. isn't the case. we have time. we could have started a couple of decades ago but we have time to regulate the industry. chatgpt is not clever, not as clever as us. it's quite dull, really, in terms of what it can do about the technical achievements are amazing. the eu have gone to law, we say we need to be more innovation lead and grasp opportunities for al for the good. what has come to the four since we had politicians and their children playing with chatgpt is that we need a global alliance. we can regulate as individual nations in the way we

want to regulate, and china isjust as worried about this as we are and are already probably had a farce in terms of regulation inside china, which is a different cultural value system. but we don't know how to regulate yet because we don't have any certainty about the future. we just know there are possibilities and it's all about possibilities. they have very different cultural sensitivities, they have a very different vision for life. they have already published draft regulations that suggest ai anaesthetists share the socialist core values of china. house it going to be possible, then, to get some kind global regulation for al? to get some kind global regulation forai? —— how is to get some kind global regulation for al? —— how is it. to get some kind global regulation forai? —— how is it. it to get some kind global regulation for al? -- how is it.— for al? -- how is it. it will depend on which aspect, _ for al? -- how is it. it will depend on which aspect, there _ for al? -- how is it. it will depend on which aspect, there are - for al? -- how is it. it will depend on which aspect, there are certain j on which aspect, there are certain aspects _ on which aspect, there are certain aspects different countries will disagree about and where they will need to— disagree about and where they will need to have different rules. but insofar— need to have different rules. but insofar as — need to have different rules. but insofar as we are concerned with

these _ insofar as we are concerned with these long—term risks or risk, existential— these long—term risks or risk, existential risk, there we are all in the _ existential risk, there we are all in the same boat. there might be shared _ in the same boat. there might be shared interests there in making sure that — shared interests there in making sure that for example, the new models — sure that for example, the new models are introduced that are even bigger— models are introduced that are even bigger and _ models are introduced that are even bigger and more powerful than the current— bigger and more powerful than the current state—of—the—art, some tests are run— current state—of—the—art, some tests are run before they are released to check _ are run before they are released to check that — are run before they are released to check that they don't for example help the — check that they don't for example help the user make more poisonous nerve _ help the user make more poisonous nerve gases — help the user make more poisonous nerve gases or biological agents or they kind _ nerve gases or biological agents or they kind of meet various evaluation criteria _ they kind of meet various evaluation criteria so — they kind of meet various evaluation criteria. so that would be one aspect — criteria. so that would be one aspect where i think there could be agreement. also, more broadly, developing a vision where ultimately, machine intelligence should _ ultimately, machine intelligence should be notjust for the good of one company or even one country, but really— one company or even one country, but really for— one company or even one country, but really for all _ one company or even one country, but really for all of humanity. so getting — really for all of humanity. so getting voices from all over the world _ getting voices from all over the world involved in what we ultimately are helping to achieve here should be part— are helping to achieve here should be part of— are helping to achieve here should be part of what we aim for.-

be part of what we aim for. thank ou both be part of what we aim for. thank you both very _ be part of what we aim for. thank you both very much, _ be part of what we aim for. thank you both very much, fascinating. | you both very much, fascinating. professor wendy hall and professor bostrom, thank you. now, new claims from another woman who alleges she was raped and assaulted by andrew tate. along with three other women, she's planning to sue the controversial social media personality for damages in the high court. she's told newsnight she wants to speak out to educate others about consent. mr tate denies the claims. we'll bring you her interview and speak to her lawyer in a moment. first, here's how andrew tate rose to prominence. nearly 7 million followers on social media. billions of views on instagram and tiktok. by any metric, andrew tate is a significant and powerful voice online. he started as a champion kickboxer, before entering and being kicked out of the big brother house in 2016. monetising his reality show infamy, he played up to his bad—boy brand, selling online courses teaching men how to make money like him. how to attract women, like him.

how to be like him. and much of his content came with a pervasive undercurrent of misogyny. female... ..are barely sentient. his arrest in romania last december on suspicion of rape and sex trafficking threw a spotlight even further on just how influential he'd become in british youth culture. some of the things he says, i agree with as well, like, not all of the things he says are completely, like, outrageous. andrew tate. hello. - in his interview with the bbc last week, tate said he promoted positive values. i preach hard work, discipline. i'm an athlete. i preach anti—drug, i preach religion, i preach no alcohol, i preach no knife crime. every single problem with modern society, i'm against. the chief executive of rape crisis in england and wales says she is deeply concerned by the dangerous ideology of misogynistic rape culture that mr tate spreads. you know i'm innocent.

he stands accused notjust of spreading rape culture, but of acts of rape. i've been speaking to a 30—year—old woman who's recentlyjoined a civil case here in the uk against andrew tate. now, four women in total are preparing to sue him for damages at the high court in london for alleged sexual abuse between 2013 and 2016. evie, which isn't her real name, alleges she was raped by him after being choked by him. it happened, she claims, ten years ago — before he was famous. newsnight understands three people who know evie, and say they remember her describing what had happened, have told her lawyers they're prepared to give evidence in court to that effect. evie says she's speaking out because she didn't know what she says he did then was an alleged crime, and she wants people to understand what consent is and isn't. this is her first ever interview. we're not using her real name to protect her identity. and just to let you know, the conversation is frank, contains strong language and refers

to claims of sexual violence. her words are spoken for her. i began by asking her why she wanted to speak anonymously. i think mainly for tate's following is quite strong and they're growing in number. i wouldn't want to kind of put myself in harm's way, which could be a very high possibility, if i wasn't anonymous. and what do you mean by harm's way? i think trolling online is quite a big thing. i don't have a massive social media presence, but it's still not really something that you want. tell us when you say you first met andrew tate. i first met andrew in 2014, and it was in luton. so i was on a night out with a friend. and what did you think of andrew tate? i thought he seemed nice enough. we got on well, we got chatting.

he wasn't kind of expressing any of the views he has now. he seemed nice enough. can i ask what happened later on that evening? yeah, so we got a taxi back to his house in luton and that was when i slept with him for the first time. there was nothing kind of untoward happened, you know. fairly straightforward. there was no aggression. and then you say you met him three or four months later. what were the circumstances there? i mean, we hadn't been speaking loads. like, there was no relationship, really, but he had said that he would be near where i was living at the time because he was working as a doorman, so he would come over to my flat after a shift. were you ok with that? yeah, absolutely fine. yeah, no problem at all. we went to my room to have sex, and whilst we were

having sex, he put his hand on my throat and strangled me until i lost consciousness. and then when i kind of came back around, it was a bit confusing at first because you don't really know what's happened when you pass out. but he was still having sex with me when i kind of came back around again. and forgive the intrusive nature of these questions, but when you began having sex, you had consented, you were ok with that? yes, yeah. when you say you came around, are you saying he was still penetrating you? he was, yeah. i think as soon as the person you are having sex with is unable to communicate what they want to do, then that consent is just completely gone. when you say you came around, what were you thinking?

confusion, to start off with, and then, when i realised what had happened i was quite scared, really, because after that had happened, we didn't have sex again after that. but he kind of kept saying, "i own you, you belong to me". like, threatening to kill me, and he ended up... he stayed the night and left in the morning. and then the next day, one of the whites of my eyes had gone completely red. apparently, that's common in domestic abuse cases, where there is a lack of oxygen in your brain, so your blood vessels start bursting to kind of try and get the oxygen. did you feel that something had happened that was wrong? i think i knew it was wrong, but i didn't think the severity of it was as bad as i now think it is. i'm guessing it didn't cross your mind to

ever think about contacting the police? no. and why was that? again, like i said, ijust didn't see it as being a really serious incident, as it is. when did you come across him again? i would say properly would be in 2020, when he started to get quite famous on tiktok. that was when his videos would show up on my feed on instagram quite a lot as well. what were you thinking about his success? it's really disappointing. i think particularly kind of like knowing what he's done to me and the views that he shares, he's putting into young men and women's heads as well... it's just a shame someone can get famous from so much hatred. at what point did you think that what you say happened to you, what you say

he did to you, was wrong? when in lockdown, again on tiktok, he became famous, i remember sitting down with a few of my girl mates saying, "this is the guy, that's him", and they were, like, "god, that's awful". because i have had friends who have been sexually assaulted before and my friend was like, you do realise that is what's happened to you, that is sexual assault? but i never really thought about that before. some people might say you have come forward because of his being high—profile now, because he is wealthy now and he could possibly be financially advantageous to you. what would you say to that? i'm not doing it for the money. i'm just doing it purely for two reasons. one is to make awareness of what he's like and hopefully get some justice, and the second reason is kind of education in consent. hopefully can teach, you know, women what that

looks like and what that means and encourage more women to come forward with stories. in the last few days, andrew tate has done an interview with the bbc. in that interview, he said, "if any female on the planet has a problem with me, i strongly recommend her to go to the police and try and pursue me for criminal damages." what do you say to that? i would say that he can't, at this point now, he can't deny it. there's a lot of women out there who are coming forward. i think he just needs to be held accountable and admit to what he's done. would you want the police to investigate him for alleged rape and the alleged assault of you? at this point, i don't think that would be necessary, no. why is that? i think that the civil route seems to be the right one to go down. yeah, i don't think it's necessary for my personal incident for the police to get involved.

andrew tate himself has dismissed the testimony of other another woman who was anonymous for similar reasons and was using a pseudonym, and essentially suggested that they don't exist, if they're anonymous. what would you say to that? i mean, i exist. i'm sat here now and lots of other women equally do exist. there's enough evidence out there to show that these women he has harmed do exist. so i think he needs to just get a bit of a reality check and admit to what he's done. evie, thank you very much for talking to us. thank you. a spokesperson for andrew tate has told us in response to that interview, "andrew vehemently denies these accusations and does not condone violence of any kind towards women. all sexual acts that andrew has partaken in have been consensual and agreed upon before by both parties. he's saddened that a few opportunistic women who he has

allegedly spent time with nearly a decade ago have decided to try and take advantage of his current situation. we will not be commenting any further on anyone's alleged intention to pursue legal action unless such action is submitted to the authorities." we can talk now to the lawyer who's representing the four women, including evie. matthewjury is managing partner at mccuejury & partners. why are you pursuing this through the civil courts? i why are you pursuing this through the civil courts?— the civil courts? i don't think i could put— the civil courts? i don't think i could put it — the civil courts? i don't think i could put it any _ the civil courts? i don't think i could put it any more - the civil courts? i don't think i i could put it any more profoundly than evie already has done. that is a tough watch. the reality is, the victims need a platform to be able to tell their stories, to be able to make their allegations and claims heard stop tate has had the megaphone for far too long. i think we can all safely say we are pretty tired of hearing from him, to be honest. ., ., , ., ., honest. some of the women you are representing — honest. some of the women you are representing to _ honest. some of the women you are representing to go _ honest. some of the women you are representing to go to _ honest. some of the women you are representing to go to the _ honest. some of the women you are representing to go to the police i representing to go to the police years ago. representing to go to the police ears a . o. , representing to go to the police years ago-— years ago. they did, and i can't comment _ years ago. they did, and i can't comment necessarily _

years ago. they did, and i can't comment necessarily on - years ago. they did, and i can't comment necessarily on why i years ago. they did, and i can'tl comment necessarily on why the prosecution didn't go forward in 2019. all i can say is i can see the evidence —— i have seen the evidence, it seems there was certainly significant and substantial evidence enough to warrant a criminal prosecution, only the cps can answer why they didn't proceed at that time. thea;r the cps can answer why they didn't proceed at that time.— the cps can answer why they didn't proceed at that time. they would not have proceeded _ proceed at that time. they would not have proceeded because _ proceed at that time. they would not have proceeded because there i proceed at that time. they would not have proceeded because there would j have proceeded because there would not be a reasonable chance of a conviction. i not be a reasonable chance of a conviction-— not be a reasonable chance of a conviction. ., �* ~ ., conviction. i don't know whether it is that simplistic. _ conviction. i don't know whether it is that simplistic. and _ conviction. i don't know whether it is that simplistic. and i _ conviction. i don't know whether it is that simplistic. and i certainly i is that simplistic. and i certainly don't want to generalise about the police. there are a lot of good officers out there. but there have been concerns about institutionalised misogyny. i don't think at that time, there was sufficient education and understanding around coercion and control. and indeed, issues of consent. so i think maybe it is a decision of the time and things have moved on and changed. 50 is decision of the time and things have moved on and changed.— moved on and changed. so is it you ho -e the moved on and changed. so is it you hope the police _ moved on and changed. so is it you hope the police will _ moved on and changed. so is it you hope the police will look _ moved on and changed. so is it you hope the police will look again i moved on and changed. so is it you hope the police will look again at i hope the police will look again at these cases, three of the cases? evie has already said she doesn't think the police will take her

seriously necessarily. i think the police will take her seriously necessarily.- think the police will take her seriously necessarily. i think evie, like a lot of— seriously necessarily. i think evie, like a lot of other _ seriously necessarily. i think evie, like a lot of other women - seriously necessarily. i think evie, like a lot of other women in i seriously necessarily. i think evie, like a lot of other women in her i like a lot of other women in her situation, because of what they have been through can minimise their experiences. even the interview she gave there, which isjust heartbreaking, there is minimisation going on. and indeed, she doesn't have to explain why she has not gone to the police, she doesn't have to answer if she will go to the police now, she's free to change her mind, there is no statute of limitations. if she wants to go to the police in future, she can still do so, that option is still available to her. at the moment, she does not, maybe she is concerned that if she does, they will not do anything about it. gigen will not do anything about it. given these allegations _ will not do anything about it. given these allegations are _ will not do anything about it. given these allegations are in _ will not do anything about it. given these allegations are in some i will not do anything about it. given these allegations are in some cases from ten years ago, what kind of evidence do you before a judge in a civil claim? tate we have the victim testimony which is very compelling and witness

testimony. there are some pretty horrendous text messages from one of our clients, sent to her by tate including, i love raping you. that's pretty damning stuff. gags including, i love raping you. that's pretty damning stuff.— including, i love raping you. that's pretty damning stuff. as you know he vehemently denies _ pretty damning stuff. as you know he vehemently denies the _ pretty damning stuff. as you know he vehemently denies the accusations i vehemently denies the accusations against him and says he does not condone violence to women. what kind of damages are you seeking on behalf of damages are you seeking on behalf of the women you represent? firstltgr of the women you represent? firstly i would of the women you represent? firstly i would say — of the women you represent? firstly i would say that _ of the women you represent? firstly i would say that the _ of the women you represent? firstly i would say that the primary - of the women you represent? firstly i would say that the primary goal i i would say that the primary goal here isn't about money but i would say there is no shame in the victims seeking compensation for the harm and injury and loss they have suffered, the trauma they have been through. the fact that they haven't been able to work or enter new relationships, that pain and loss is very real. andrew tate has made no bones that he is motivated by money but the victims aren't. if they can get compensation then so be it but the objective is to have the

evidence heard in court. tate of course denies the allegations but let the court determined what the truth of the matter is.— truth of the matter is. thanks for talkin: to truth of the matter is. thanks for talking to us- _ and if you wish to contact organisations that can help about any of the kind of things we've been discussing, please do get in touch with bbc action line. the question many are asking today is how a dam in southern ukraine was destroyed, and who destroyed it. both ukraine and russia blame each other. it's reported that us intelligence is pointing to russia. nearby, a town is drowning under 11 metres of water, and 17,000 people are being evacuated. just over an hour ago, the un security council met to discuss the latest situation on the ground. here's mark. the breach of the dam is a disaster. the consequences of which will become clearer as the water levels in the surrounding lands rise and those in the reservoir fall.

this ukrainian projection, using satellite imagery, suggests the extent of inundation that may happen over the coming days. a consequence the ukrainian president was quick to blame russia for. translation: it is physically - impossible to blow it up somehow from the outside by shelling. it was mined by the russian occupiers and they blew it up. predictably enough, russia has denied it. translation: aiming to prevent the offensive operations - by the russian army on this section of the front line, the kyiv regime committed an act of sabotage or rather a terrorist act. with its key position, the dam is or was an energy source, a vital reservoir of drinking water and the bridge over it, a military checkpoint. images from before the collapse show the road over it had been damaged in two places.

by yesterday, though, the road at one of those spots had collapsed and it looked like it was getting worse. this footage, taken by russians heading across last summer, shows the impact of ukrainian artillery fire aimed at interdicting traffic. as they abandoned kherson on the northern bank last year, the russians blew up a road section. this video shows that happening. it was wrongly shared today by many people discussing what had happened last night. but neither this nor the earlier ukrainian fire would have undermined the basic structure. what is known is that throughout recent weeks heavy rain has raised the water to record levels. in may, the reservoir reached an unprecedented 17 and a half metres, higher than the dam itself, leading to an overflow. with more than 18 million litres of water being held back, pressure on the dam had reached peak levels. looking again at satellite images

from a few days ago shows what seems to be new damage to the road beside the turbine hall. so does this suggest that the sluices were beginning to collapse under pressure, or was it deliberate sabotage? some local social media users reported hearing a blast last night and the russians had boasted of rigging the dam with explosives. ukrainian officials believe that it was a deliberate act of destruction. images of the neighbouring town of kakhovka, flooded today, and of the area around the dam do not suggest damage to nearby buildings, so the idea of a very large explosion isn't that credible either. was the bang heard by locals the dam giving way? given that the area south of the dam was a possible avenue for a ukrainian advance towards crimea, russia appears to have a strong motive to flood that territory

by blowing the sluices. did they perhaps attempt to do that, but miscalculate the effect, leading to the collapse of the entire structure? and now that widespread flooding is taking place, there are disastrous consequences for people and livestock caught by the rising waters. the russian army is not immune to this either, and the broad swathe of defences it built against the expectant ukrainian offensive are now underwater. while there is no current threat to the safety of the zaporizhzhia nuclear power station or the supply of drinking water to crimea, both rely on the reservoir, and as levels fall, that picture could change. so if the russians intended a controlled flooding of vital territory, they've messed up disastrously. but the possibility remains that the whole disaster has resulted from miscalculation over a longer period, with poor management of the barrier leading to its eventual collapse.

prince harry told the high court today that he's experienced hostility from the press since he was born. during five hours of cross—examination in the privacy case he's bringing against mirror group newspapers, he didn't hold back: his written witness statement was also released and in it, he accused former mirror editor piers morgan of "horrific personal attacks", adding the alleged attacks were "presumably in retaliation and in the hope that "i will back down". mr morgan has previously denied ever hacking anyone's phone or asking others to. and today the mirror's lawyer said some of the stories in question were published before harry got a phone, and that others were already in the public domain, or released by aides — so not obtained through phone hacking. chris atkins is here — he wrote the tv drama, vardy v rooney: a courtroom drama. he's a bafta—nominated film—maker whose work has got up close with the culture of tabloid journalism, and gave evidence to the leveson inquiry into press ethics. what does the trial mean to somebody

like you watching it very closely? i'm really enjoying