the world, most notably in the field of animal rights. five decades after first publishing his manifesto calling for animal liberation, has the movement he inspired become unstoppable? peter singer, welcome to hardtalk. peter singer, welcome to hardtalk— peter singer, welcome to hardtalk. a, ~ ,, , hardtalk. thank you, stephen. it's aood hardtalk. thank you, stephen. it's good to _ hardtalk. thank you, stephen. it's good to be _ hardtalk. thank you, stephen. it's good to be with _ hardtalk. thank you, stephen. it's good to be with you - hardtalk. thank you, stephen. it's good to be with you again. i it's good to be with you again. it's good to be with you again. it's great to be here and have you with me and partly the reason is because you have written an updated rewritten version of the book you almost five decades ago, animal liberation. it is called animal liberation. it is called animal liberation now. is the publication of this update

recognition that your call, your demand for a new relationship between humanitarian maker for humanity and all the other creatures on this planet, but the call failed? ~ ., ., failed? well, it failed to achieve _ failed? well, it failed to achieve what _ failed? well, it failed to achieve what i _ failed? well, it failed to achieve what i had - failed? well, it failed to l achieve what i had hoped failed? well, it failed to i achieve what i had hoped it would achieve and what i believe ethically it needs to achieve, that's true. it did not totally fail because there is now an animal rights movement which is a powerful force in many of the countries in the world and many people currently credit my book as having triggered or inspired that movement. and that movement has had some achievements in some countries. i would not deny that. but if we look at it globally, there are more animals in factory farms than there were ever before and there are more animals suffering from human use and misuse than they were before, so yes, i have to accept in that sense, it has failed. , �* ,,

accept in that sense, it has failed. , �* in failed. isn't your most fundamental - failed. isn't your most fundamental principle | failed. isn't your most. fundamental principle a failed. isn't your most - fundamental principle a simple one? that is that human beings have no moral, ethical right to exploit in any way other animals on this planet? that we have a moral duty to treat them as equals? i have a moral duty to treat them as equals?— as equals? i think we have a moral duty _ as equals? i think we have a moral duty to _ as equals? i think we have a moral duty to treat - as equals? i think we have a moral duty to treat their - moral duty to treat their interests in not feeling pain and not suffering is equal to the interests that we humans have not feeling pain and suffering. so, that's the kind of fundamental moral equality that i believe we should recognise. but of course, they are not equals politically, cannot vote, they cannot think about the future and plan for the future as we do, so inevitably, we are going to be making decisions that affect them. i object, though, to when those decisions say because they are not members of our species, they don't really count and we can either

discount or even completely ignore their pain and suffering.— ignore their pain and sufferinu. �* ., . ., suffering. and on reflection, do ou suffering. and on reflection, do you think _ suffering. and on reflection, do you think it _ suffering. and on reflection, do you think it was - suffering. and on reflection, do you think it was useful i suffering. and on reflection, | do you think it was useful for you at the very outset of this argument to say to all of us human beings in animal liberation, the original work, useful to say, "we should view the way that we exploit and abuse animals as" use the words busiest, "but also as akin to slavery or racism? " something that we now regard as something completely unacceptable. you think that resonated with most of humanity?— of humanity? well, i said that because i _ of humanity? well, i said that because i wanted _ of humanity? well, i said that because i wanted to _ of humanity? well, i said that because i wanted to get - of humanity? well, i said that. because i wanted to get people to take the issue seriously. i felt that at the time the first book came out, issues about animals werejust book came out, issues about animals were just not taken a serious moral questions at all and i do think that i and the animal movement have succeeded in making people recognise that these are serious moral issues. so, to that extent, i think i was justified so, to that extent, i think i wasjustified in so, to that extent, i think i was justified in what i said. that doesn't mean i've

persuaded everybody to look at it in this way. but i want people to see the analogies between those racism, sexism and speciesism.— and speciesism. now, you talk about the _ and speciesism. now, you talk about the degree _ and speciesism. now, you talk about the degree to _ and speciesism. now, you talk about the degree to which - and speciesism. now, you talk about the degree to which you | about the degree to which you are disappointed and you talked about exploitation of animals through, for example, factory farming. it is part of the problem here that the book and the updated book, they have a much wider audience and arguably, much greater influence, in the western world — of which, of course, you are a part— and they do in the developing and emerging economies of this world. i'm thinking for example of china, where actually, the argument right now is perhaps most humane and most important because it is in countries like china that the massive expansion of meat consumption and of industrialised factory farming is happening? that's true. farming is happening? that's true- and — farming is happening? that's true- and i — farming is happening? that's true. and i hope _ farming is happening? that's true. and i hope that - farming is happening? that's true. and i hope that in - true. and i hope that in sometimes, these ideas will

have resonance in china. you're right that at the moment they don't. and china is enormously increasing its production of animals and it's all through this industrialised production. they are building 26 story buildings that are just full of pigs who, of course, never leave those buildings. and i'm very keen for those built —— those ideas to become global and spread to other countries. can you understand when people in china and other emerging economies may listen to your argument and think to themselves," there's something going on here which is akin to the arguments about climate change and about our right to industrialise, to fully industrialised, and to exploit natural resources in the way that the west bid for hundreds of years to build the economic supremacy?" chinese person may think, "i have a right to enjoy consuming meat in a way that westerners have done for decades, if not for centuries.

who is peter singer to tell me thatjust who is peter singer to tell me that just as i who is peter singer to tell me thatjust as i acquire enough prosperity in my economy is sufficiently able to produce cheap meat, just as i'm able to enjoy that, he says sorry, you cannot." i enjoy that, he says sorry, you cannot." ~ enjoy that, he says sorry, you cannot-"— cannot." i think you need to move away _ cannot." i think you need to move away from _ cannot." i think you need to move away from it. - cannot." i think you need to move away from it. it's - cannot." i think you need to move away from it. it's not| cannot." i think you need to i move away from it. it's not me telling you, it is rather saying look at what you are doing to animals, look at what the system of production is doing to animals and ask yourself whether you can really defend and justify that. and of course within asian traditions, there are traditions that suggest that you need to be compassionate to all animals and buddhism is a part of chinese tradition, part of the ethics, and certainly, i think a true understanding of buddhist ethics would say this is not acceptable. you buddhist ethics would say this is not acceptable.— is not acceptable. you talk about sentience _ is not acceptable. you talk about sentience beings, i is not acceptable. you talk. about sentience beings, and that to you is hugely important because, as you said at the beginning of the interview, animals, as you say, feel pain, experience pain and, indeed, pleasure just as we humans do and that is why it is so

important to treat them with respect. at what point do you decide that a creature does not experience those things? it is no longer sentience? because you ratherfamously no longer sentience? because you rather famously said no longer sentience? because you ratherfamously said do no longer sentience? because you rather famously said do you know what? i'm not against eating an oyster because i do not believe that it is a sentience creature. so what is your cut—off? how do you decide what is entered into what is not? i what is entered into what is not? ~ ., , ., what is entered into what is not? ~ ., not? i think that is an open scientific _ not? i think that is an open scientific question - not? i think that is an open scientific question and - not? i think that is an open scientific question and we i not? i think that is an open - scientific question and we have to assemble the best evidence we can. oysters have very rudimentary nervous systems and they don't move, they cannot run away from a sense of danger, so i think many other creatures who can move have evolved capacities to feel pain, to warn them of danger. that doesn't seem plausible in the case of an oyster.— the case of an oyster. you're a philosopher— the case of an oyster. you're a philosopher and _ the case of an oyster. you're a philosopher and bioethicists i philosopher and bioethicists are you truly qualified to tell the world what feels sufficient pain do not be consumed by humans?— pain do not be consumed by humans? �* ., ., ., humans? i'm qualified to read the scientific _ humans? i'm qualified to read the scientific literature - humans? i'm qualified to read the scientific literature and . the scientific literature and to summarise that and to discuss it with some people who

are more knowledgeable than i am and i'm giving my opinion based on that but no, i don't claim expertise in the area. i'm not trying to be flippant but this is important, insects for example, because there is a whole school of thought that says as we tried to move away from meat production, not least because of the carbon emissions, the greenhouse gas emissions, the greenhouse gas emissions, we should embrace the industrialised production of insects as food. what about sentience?— sentience? i'm agnostic on that. i sentience? i'm agnostic on that. l don't _ sentience? i'm agnostic on that. i don't really - sentience? i'm agnostic on that. i don't really know. sentience? i'm agnostic on that. i don't really know if| that. i don't really know if they are sentience. i don't know if anyone does. and for that reason i would prefer that we find plant—based sources of food or perhaps cellular cultivation of meat, which is another possibility that is now, there is a lot of investment going on in producing cellular meat, i would rather we moved in that direction than possibly, i don't know, but possibly harm tens of billions of insects in order to produce food. you've

highlighted — order to produce food. you've highlighted the _ order to produce food. you've highlighted the fact _ order to produce food. you've highlighted the fact that - order to produce food. you've highlighted the fact that in . highlighted the fact that in some parts of the world, trends are not working in the direction you would like to see them go. in other parts of the world, i'm thinking particularly of europe, there are much tougher rules and regulations in place now to get rid of the most sort of egregious, as you would see it, industrialised factory farming practices. so, why do you think that some, for example in europe, are prepared to listen to you when others in the united states, for example— who, again, part of the western community of nations— have listened to you and actually ignored you?— ignored you? well, i don't auree ignored you? well, i don't agree that _ ignored you? well, i don't agree that individuals - ignored you? well, i don't agree that individuals in l ignored you? well, i don't i agree that individuals in the united states have ignored me because... united states have ignored me because- - -_ united states have ignored me because... system has ignored ou. because... system has ignored you- the _ because... system has ignored you. the system _ because... system has ignored you. the system has _ because... system has ignored you. the system has but - because... system has ignored you. the system has but if - because... system has ignored you. the system has but if you| you. the system has but if you look at the _ you. the system has but if you look at the states _ you. the system has but if you look at the states like - look at the states like california, they are able to have citizen initiated referendums, they vote in the way i want, they passed a proposition i2 way i want, they passed a proposition 12 recently upheld by the us supreme court which does require that animals all have space to be able to turn

around, to stretch their limbs without bumping into the sides of their enclosure, and that is somewhat similar to the european and united kingdom regulations. the problem with the united states is that the federal political system does not allow citizens to vote on theseissues not allow citizens to vote on these issues and it is corrupted by money. i mean, i'm not saying that money does not have any influence on politics in europe or the united kingdom, it clearly does, but it has much more power in the united states and i think the system is really corrupted by the money of lobbyists, including, of course, agribusiness.- including, of course, agribusiness. including, of course, aaribusiness. ., ., ., ., _ agribusiness. you are famously cominu agribusiness. you are famously coming to _ agribusiness. you are famously coming to draw— agribusiness. you are famously coming to draw a _ agribusiness. you are famously coming to draw a lot _ agribusiness. you are famously coming to draw a lot of - agribusiness. you are famously coming to draw a lot of your. coming to draw a lot of your ideas from sort of utilitarianism and the sort of rational pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number. do you think on that level, it has helped your argument that since you originally wrote animal liberation and now you've updated it, in the intervening years there has been a much greater emphasis on the degree to which the production of

animal meat is extraordinarily bad for climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. i think 15% possibly of all the world's emissions can be ascribed to livestock farming. does that help your argument? i think it does help and one of the reasons i wanted to bring out a new version is to include climate change in the discussion that i already had in the book about reasons for an ethical diet. what is it to lead —— iten ethical diet. and i think it is one of the easier ways we can cut greenhouse gases, we don't need new technologies, we don't need to redo the power grid, wejust have to stop eating meat and as you say, we will cut that 15% and that's really going to be important in the battle to avoid catastrophic climate change. avoid catastrophic climate chance. ., avoid catastrophic climate chance. . change. yeah, you don't necessarily _ change. yeah, you don't necessarily need - change. yeah, you don't necessarily need to - change. yeah, you don't necessarily need to stopj change. yeah, you don't - necessarily need to stop eating meat, do you? you canjust become a different kind of meat consumer, and ethical omnivore, i think the phrase is, where you make a point of saying i know where the meat i am purchasing comes from. it was

grown in a farm which has committed to humane practices. the animals are basically happy, untilthey the animals are basically happy, until they are killed humanely. on that basis, i am good to eat the meat. would you agree that those people are good to eat that meat? well, from the point _ good to eat that meat? well, from the point of _ good to eat that meat? well, from the point of view - good to eat that meat? well, from the point of view from l good to eat that meat? well, l from the point of view from the animals, it's a defensible viewpoint. i don't do it myself but i can understand people being conscientious about ensuring that the animals do have good lives. it's not that easy to find any more but it's possible. going back to climate change, as you mentioned, if they are eating grass fed beef or lamb, then there is still the climate problem. it does not solve the problem. in fact, eating grass means that it takes longer for the animals to reach market weight which means they are going to produce more methane, the greenhouse gas thatis methane, the greenhouse gas that is very powerful and accelerates climate change, over their lifetime than they would if they were factory farmed. so, it's hard to find anything that will be both

humane and will not contribute to climate change.— to climate change. what about lab -based _ to climate change. what about lab -based meat? _ to climate change. what about lab -based meat? again, - to climate change. what about i lab -based meat? again, science lab —based meat? again, science is moving very fast and now, it is moving very fast and now, it is possible to take cells from live animals, develop them, cultivate them in a lab and produce essentially a meat which is both synthetic but drawn from the original animal? now, you don't like eating meat. you don't think that's good for humanity. but on the basis it was grown in a lab, you going to give that a pass? i am. i'm fine with that. and if it moves people away from eating meat that comes from animals and causes harm to animals and causes harm to animals and causes harm to animals and climate change, yes. i would welcome the development.— yes. i would welcome the development. ok, let's talk about a different _ development. ok, let's talk about a different aspect - development. ok, let's talk about a different aspect of. about a different aspect of your concern about the way we humans treat animals, and that's instrumentation, particularly medical examination. hundreds of millions of animals each year are used in medical lab —based experiments. we can, indeed, thank the inventors of the

various covid vaccines for using animals to make sure that those vaccines were safe for humanity. except you are not prepared to thank them, are you? i prepared to thank them, are ou? ., prepared to thank them, are ou? . ., , you? i am not absolutist. there are some _ you? i am not absolutist. there are some circumstances - you? i am not absolutist. there are some circumstances in - you? i am not absolutist. therel are some circumstances in which the benefits are so great and there is no other way of doing it and the hamster animals are... �* w ., are... but the race to find covid vaccines _ are... but the race to find covid vaccines is - are... but the race to find covid vaccines is one - are... but the race to find covid vaccines is one of i are... but the race to find - covid vaccines is one of them? at some stages. in that race, the research community did not make use of thousands, tens of thousands of dollin tears who wanted to be challenged themselves. there was an organisation called one day soon i was said we can get the vaccine sooner if you make of these fully informed human volunteers who are prepared to have vaccines tested on them and then be challenged with a virus, and i think it was a mistake not to do that. it would have saved animals, but perhaps more importantly, you

might think, it would have saved human lives.- saved human lives. this is where you _ saved human lives. this is where you as _ saved human lives. this is where you as an _ saved human lives. this is where you as an ethicistsl saved human lives. this is- where you as an ethicists gets into hot water because now we have gone into the territory of using humans for experiments. you say as i understand it, tell me if i am wrong, there is no more ethicaljustification for experimenting on a rat or a mouse than a severely intellectually disabled human. that is a human who is thought of in a vegetative state. you are saying, use those humans for tests of medicines. if somebody is in a vegetative state and we have done brain imaging to show they can never recover from that state, then, yes, i think it doesn't really harm them, they are not conscious, not capable of suffering. and as models in fact they would be more valuable because we have done all sorts of things and curing cancer in mice, for example, but i don't translate women's, if you could use humans incapable and would never become —— never recover consciousness, that would be a

more valuable and ethical... you are a —— as a detached utilitarian might think that. will those when peter singer says a live human being should be taken off and experimented on four... be taken off and experimented on four- - -_ on four... families of people who are _ on four... families of people who are brain-dead - on four. .. families of people who are brain-dead will- on four... families of people| who are brain-dead will allow who are brain—dead will allow their organs to be used to benefit others. i think they will recognise there is no benefit to the human and continuing to have a heart that could save the life of someone else. so perhaps they will also feel that out of this tragedy, some good can come. you do a- ear some good can come. you do appear to _ some good can come. you do appear to have _ some good can come. you do appear to have a _ some good can come. you do appear to have a view- some good can come. you do appear to have a view of - some good can come. you doj appear to have a view of what it means to be severely disabled, and often you focus on intellectual disabled, sometimes on physical disablement as well. you seem to say that those human beings have less value and you say that when a new human is born, if they are born with conditions, for example, downs,

spina bifida, then the parents of that newborn should have the right to end the child's life. many people, many people find it deeply disturbing. i many people, many people find it deeply disturbing.— it deeply disturbing. i agree, eo - le it deeply disturbing. i agree, people do — it deeply disturbing. i agree, people do find _ it deeply disturbing. i agree, people do find it _ it deeply disturbing. i agree, people do find it disturbing, | people do find it disturbing, but those same people would probably say that it is a woman's �*s right to her prenatal diagnosis when she is pregnant, and if she discovers that her child will have one of those conditions mentioned, to terminate the pregnancy. i don't see a big difference in terms of our attitude to disabilities, whether you do that when you are pregnant to end the life of the foetus or whether you do it... end the life of the foetus or whether you do it. . .- end the life of the foetus or whether you do it... you are with those — whether you do it... you are with those ante _ whether you do it... you are with those ante abortion - with those ante abortion campaigners in the united states to say that life begins at conception and all the rights that apply to somebody alive in this world of ours, those rights also apply to the foetus in the mother's worm. i agree that life believes that conception, it is an undeniable

claim that human life begins at conception. i don't agree that you have the rights at conception that ui have because you are obviously not capable of having once or preferences or being able to consent to anything, but i agree that birth in itself, the line between a foetus and a week old infant is not really a line of sharp moral distinction. i want to ut sharp moral distinction. i want to put you _ sharp moral distinction. i want to put you the _ sharp moral distinction. i want to put you the words - sharp moral distinction. i want to put you the words of - sharp moral distinction. i want to put you the words of the . to put you the words of the late harriet mcbridejohnson. she was a lawyer, a disability rights campaigner who used a wheelchair, and she said i think back into thousand and three about you and your ideas, she said, i am horrified three about you and your ideas, she said, iam horrified by what peter singer says, that i have been sucked into a discussion of whether i ought to exist. what is your response to exist. what is your response to that? i to exist. what is your response to that? ., to that? i invited her to princeton _ to that? i invited her to princeton and - to that? i invited her to princeton and she - to that? i invited her to | princeton and she spoke to that? i invited her to - princeton and she spoke to my class, so we had i think a very fruitful discussion that helps the class to see both sides of that argument, and that is the

way i teach. we should have those discussions. yes. but of course the same would have happened if her mother had terminated the pregnancy in utero, again, and every person with down's syndrome could say that to any woman who terminate the pregnancy because the foetus has down's syndrome. but about 85% of women who are told that there foetus does have down's syndrome will terminate the pregnancy. it down's syndrome will terminate the pregnancy-— the pregnancy. it 'ust seems to some that _ the pregnancy. it 'ust seems to some that you _ the pregnancy. itjust seems to some that you have _ the pregnancy. itjust seems to some that you have such - the pregnancy. itjust seems to some that you have such a - some that you have such a complete commitment to the rights of animals, but you don't have quite such a commitment to the rights of all human beings. i commitment to the rights of all human beings.— human beings. i don't think that is true. _ human beings. i don't think that is true. i _ human beings. i don't think that is true. i think- human beings. i don't think that is true. i think you - human beings. i don't think| that is true. i think you have at least a greater commitment to the rights of human beings. but i am trying to do is to reduce the suffering, unnecessary pain and distress of sending it beings everywhere, and i give weight to the interests of animals, i give weight to the interests of humans. ., ., , humans. forgive me for being tersonal humans. forgive me for being personal and _ humans. forgive me for being personal and correct - humans. forgive me for being personal and correct me - humans. forgive me for being personal and correct me if - humans. forgive me for being personal and correct me if i i humans. forgive me for being i personal and correct me if i am wrong, but perhaps you had

directly very carefully on this when your own mother was ill towards the end of her life, when you, as it was reported, spend a great deal of money trying to keep her alive and to give her medical assistance when the utilitarian end you given the state she was in might have regarded it as of greater utility to end her life. but when it came personal, you didn't. well, it wasn't my — personal, you didn't. well, it wasn't my decision _ personal, you didn't. well, it wasn't my decision alone. i l wasn't my decision alone. i have a sister, we had adult... my have a sister, we had adult... my mother had adult grandchildren who wanted to participate... it was a family decision. it gets complicated, i agree. decision. it gets complicated, iatree. , decision. it gets complicated, iatree. ., ., ., i agree. maybe utilitarian and rationality — i agree. maybe utilitarian and rationality can't _ i agree. maybe utilitarian and rationality can't quite - i agree. maybe utilitarian and rationality can't quite work. rationality can't quite work for family bonds and loyalties and ties with darquea part of the philosophical mix even if you try to exclude them. in the end, it suddenly _ you try to exclude them. in the end, it suddenly becomes - you try to exclude them. in the end, it suddenly becomes a . end, it suddenly becomes a complicated discussion and you have to try to take the interests of all family involved and obviously i do not want to have a serious breach

with my sister or with my nieces, so i went along with that decision. i think had i been the only one looking after my mother, because she had reached the stage where she no longer recognise anybody and i don't think she was capable of enjoying her life in any way, i would have asked the doctor to withdraw life support at an earlier stage. at, withdraw life support at an earlier stage.— withdraw life support at an earlier stage. a final thought, peter singer. _ earlier stage. a final thought, peter singer. people - earlier stage. a final thought, peter singer. people around i earlier stage. a final thought, i peter singer. people around the world are fascinated by your thoughts on all sorts of different things, and i want to ask you about the rise in the power of artificial intelligence. because, again, it seems to me philosophically gets into areas of rights and relationships with us, the human species. there is talk now of intelligent machines acquiring a degree of intellectual autonomy, in a sense, a form of consciousness. can you imagine a time when you are not only fighting for the rights of animals, but for the rights of animals, but for the rights of animals, but for the rights of intelligent machines? yes, i can. rights of intelligent machines? yes, ican. i rights of intelligent machines? yes, i can. i certainly think it is possible at some stage that we will have conscious

machines, machines with desires perhaps, machines are can suffer or enjoy their existence, and if that happens, and i think they will also have rights, and we will need to treat them better than we are treating animals today, because we still haven't given them the rights they should have. fir rights they should have. or alternatively, if they are super intelligent and perhaps may be more intelligent than humans, we may be pleading with them to give us some rights. yes, that is a problem we are trying to work on to make sure that if they are more intelligent than us, their values are aligned with ours so that they will recognise that. but it is a risk, and a lot of philosophers are concerned about that risk and are saying, well, perhaps it will be foolish to create something more intelligent that we are, perhaps that is a bad move in darwinian terms.— perhaps that is a bad move in darwinian terms. what do you think? are _ darwinian terms. what do you think? are you _ darwinian terms. what do you think? are you confident - darwinian terms. what do you think? are you confident that l think? are you confident that we human beings can get this right? we human beings can get this ritht? ., .., �*

we human beings can get this ritht? ., �* ., right? no, i couldn't say i am confident- — right? no, i couldn't say i am confident. i— right? no, i couldn't say i am confident. ithink— right? no, i couldn't say i am confident. i think it _ right? no, i couldn't say i am confident. i think it is - right? no, i couldn't say i am confident. i think it is a - confident. i think it is a risk, i think it would be wise if we could have a pause now so we can reflect before we go further. given this is a global issue, again, you have to go back to many other countries that are working on al, including china. are we going to get global agreement to pause and take stock for we go too far? i am not at all confident that we will. one, it has been _ confident that we will. one, it has been a — confident that we will. one, it has been a great _ confident that we will. one, it has been a great pleasure - has been a great pleasure talking to you. thank you for joining us. talking to you. thank you for joining us— hello there. the last day of the working week promises to be another largely fine, dry and settled one for most of us, but we are looking at

some changes taking place to our weather, all because of this area of low pressure sitting out in the atlantic, very slowly edging towards our shores. it's going to continue to destabilise the atmosphere across western areas, so, through the morning, we'll see a bit of cloud here, certainly across the southwest, cornwall and devon, into wales, northern ireland. some western parts of england could start to see some showers developing. some of these could be heavy and thundery, but the vast majority of scotland, central and eastern england, another dry, sunny one. warmer along the east coast, along north sea coasts, and we could be up to around 27 or 28 degrees. as we head through friday night, it looks like those showers, thunderstorms trundle their way northwards into southern and western scotland. further showers pushing into wales and the southwest, but central and eastern areas, once again, staying dry, and a mild night to come, certainly across the west. some chillier spots under clear skies in the east. the weekend then looks a bit more unsettled. we'll see increasing chance of showers, even longer spells of rain on sunday, and for most of us, it's still going to feel

quite warm, but not as warm as it has done. so, for saturday, then, a bit more cloud around, generally, but again, lots of sunshine, central and eastern scotland, central and eastern england. most of the showers will tend to be across the south and the west, and again, some of them could be heavy and thundery. temperatures reaching highs around 25 degrees, a little bit lower out west, because of more breeze, and certainly more cloud and showers, and as we move into sunday, it looks like this weather front will push across the country, bringing areas of thundery rain and further showers. so, initially, it'll start dry, with some sunshine in central and northern areas. but these showers and longer spells of thundery rain across england and wales, northern ireland will start to migrate their way northwards into central and southern scotland later in the day on sunday. so, because of this, temperatures won't be quite as high — still above the seasonal norm, but we're generally into the low—to—mid 20s. and then, beyond sunday, into next week, it looks like low pressure will stick close by to the west of the uk, constantly bringing a feed of showers, but there will be some sunny spells in between.

best of that sunshine will tend to be across southern and eastern areas, where, once again, it'll turn quite warm. but further north and west, temperatures will be a bit closer to the seasonal norm. take care.

live from london, live from london, this is bbc news. this is bbc news. greek authorities arrest nine people over the sinking of an overloaded migrant ship off the country's southern coast. conservative mps divided over whether to approve a damning report which found borisjohnson deliberately misled parliament. a federal grand jury in the us expands charges against a former airman suspected of leaking secret government files. and a look at a unique project using artificial intelligence to predict waste spills in southwest england.