frequent and heavy across northern and western parts of scotland, temperatures in the central belt 16 degrees whereas in the south—east of england, 2a celsius. second half of the weekend, not too many changes. quite blustery out there, strongest winds in the north, that is where we have the showers. it could be a dry weekend for many southern areas of the uk and top temperatures around 22 or 23 degrees. nothing to get excited about and the weather pattern for next week is not what we would expect for the time of year. a slower area of low pressure over the

is an exit from the european convention on human rights now on the agenda? the judges based their decision on our adherence to the echr. might we ditch the

human rights treaty? if we don't resolve this we will not be in government after the next election. i think the prime minister realises that, i hope my colleagues realise that. this is an absolutely existential issue for the conservative government. we'll be asking conservative and labour mps and a pollster whether an attempt to leave the convention could define the next election and how it would go down with voters. also tonight — the interim report into the actions of a unit of undercover cops who entered sexual relationships with women activists says if the public knew what the unit was doing it would have been scrapped. we speak to three women who were targeted. it didn't make any sense, this man had been one of my best friends for seven years, who lived in my house. i'd had, you know, i'd had an intimate relationship with him for a while, how could he be a police officer? we'll be joined by the former head of royal protection at the met,

who was himself, once, an undercover officer. pop goes the aspartame — reports suggest the who's cancer research agency is about to designate the sweetener as a possible carcinogen. kate's here to examine the science. and we'll have the latest on the riots in france after the death of a teenage boy blamed on the police good evening. the prime minister said today that he "fundamentally disagrees" with the appeal court ruling that has found the government's plans to send asylum seekers to rwanda, unlawful, and announced that the government will challenge it in the supreme court. the court of appealjudges ruled that rwanda had not provided enough safeguards to prove it is a "safe third country." the case was brought by ten people from countries including syria iraq and albania, who arrived in the uk in small boats, alongside asylum aid. in a majority decison, the judges found that sending anyone to rwanda would constitute a breach of article three of the european convemtion on human rights, with which parliament required that the government must comply.

the court's ruling and its impact on asylum policy has been extensively analysed today — so tonight we examine a potential fallout for wider politics. could the government now explore a uk exit from the echr? and if it did, how might that play at the next election? here's nick. ajudgment over a judgment over here, setting ajudgment over here, setting off a judgment over here, setting off a political row about whether we should remain over there. in a should remain over there. in a scenario where _ should remain over there. in a scenario where it _ should remain over there. in a scenario where it has - should remain over there. in —. scenario where it has proved impossible to resolve this situation within the constraints of the echr, then we probably do need to be looking at effectively a british bill of rights under wholesale from strasbourg. to bill of rights under wholesale from strasboura. ., . ., , ., strasbourg. to leave the european convention — strasbourg. to leave the european convention of _ strasbourg. to leave the european convention of human _ strasbourg. to leave the european convention of human rights - strasbourg. to leave the european convention of human rights would| strasbourg. to leave the european i convention of human rights would be as immoral_ convention of human rights would be as immoral as this is and it doesn't solve _ as immoral as this is and it doesn't solve the _ as immoral as this is and it doesn't solve the problem. itjust reinforces, yet again, that this

government thinks laws don't apply to them _ government thinks laws don't apply to them. gur government thinks laws don't apply to them. . . , to them. our clash in the effects after eumpe in _ to them. our clash in the effects after europe in the _ to them. our clash in the effects| after europe in the government's plan to send illegal migrants to rwanda. the court spoke of a real risk that people sent to rimando it will be returned to their home countries. and so, sending anyone to run one that would constitute a breach of article three of the european convention on human rights. cue calls from the tory right. the refugee convention was made for a different well, as was the human rights convention and we simply have to have a derogation so we can detain people and deport them and we will never solve this problem otherwise. will never solve this problem otherwise-— otherwise. when it comes to the le . al otherwise. when it comes to the legal frameworks, _ otherwise. when it comes to the legal frameworks, he _ otherwise. when it comes to the legalframeworks, he makes- otherwise. when it comes to the legal frameworks, he makes a l otherwise. when it comes to the i legal frameworks, he makes a very powerful _ legal frameworks, he makes a very powerful point. last year we saw the operation _ powerful point. last year we saw the operation of the strasbourg court is in a way, _ operation of the strasbourg court is in a way, operate in a way that was opaque, _ in a way, operate in a way that was opaque. that — in a way, operate in a way that was opaque, that was a regular, which

was unfair, — opaque, that was a regular, which was unfair, frankly when it comes to the will_ was unfair, frankly when it comes to the will of— was unfair, frankly when it comes to the will of the british people. and that is_ the will of the british people. and that is why we have included measures in our legislation currently— measures in our legislation currently making its way through parliament to avoid that scenario repeating — parliament to avoid that scenario repeating itself.— parliament to avoid that scenario repeating itself. labour focused on what it sees _ repeating itself. labour focused on what it sees as _ repeating itself. labour focused on what it sees as a _ repeating itself. labour focused on what it sees as a failing _ repeating itself. labour focused on what it sees as a failing policy. - what it sees as a failing policy. the tories have been in charge for 13 years. this is their chaos. there tory chaos, they're both chaos and their broken asylum system. we don't need more slogans, we need solutions. not more gimmicks, a government with a grip. she is not capable of it, so why doesn't she move over and leave the way for someone else. b, move over and leave the way for someone else-— someone else. a blow to the government's _ someone else. a blow to the government's rwanda - someone else. a blow to the l government's rwanda scheme someone else. a blow to the - government's rwanda scheme today someone else. a blow to the _ government's rwanda scheme today and now all eyes on the supreme court that will consider this judgment. they will do the right thing, one minister told me. they will do the right thing, one ministertold me. but, isaid minister told me. but, isaid what if they don't? does that mean we pull out of the convention on human

rights. then the minister added, rishie. the boats. from a former cabinet minister agger to strasbourg may be on the cards, but one thing is clear... if may be on the cards, but one thing is clear... ., �* may be on the cards, but one thing is clear- - -_ is clear... if we don't resolve this, we _ is clear. .. if we don't resolve this, we will— is clear... if we don't resolve this, we will not _ is clear... if we don't resolve this, we will not be - is clear... if we don't resolve this, we will not be in - is clear... if we don't resolve - this, we will not be in government after the next election. i think the prime minister realises that, i hope my colleagues realise that. this is an absolute existential issue for the conservative government, faced with this level of pressure. i think it is not a choice, it is not some political tactic to have this fight, it is a necessary fight for us to have. the reality is, it makes a mockery of our vote to leave the european union, which was in large part about immigration control, if we cannot credibly police our own borders. �* ., , ., , borders. don't forget history, say the lib dems. _ borders. don't forget history, say the lib dems. the _ borders. don't forget history, say the lib dems. the uk— borders. don't forget history, say the lib dems. the uk was - borders. don't forget history, say the lib dems. the uk was one i borders. don't forget history, say the lib dems. the uk was one of| borders. don't forget history, say - the lib dems. the uk was one of the oriainal the lib dems. the uk was one of the original members _ the lib dems. the uk was one of the original members of— the lib dems. the uk was one of the original members of the _ the lib dems. the uk was one of the original members of the echr. - the lib dems. the uk was one of the original members of the echr. this i original members of the echr. this is not _ original members of the echr. this is not something that somebody else came up— is not something that somebody else came up with which was imposed on us. came up with which was imposed on

us this _ came up with which was imposed on us this is _ came up with which was imposed on us this is our— came up with which was imposed on us. this is our idea, this is our way— us. this is our idea, this is our way of— us. this is our idea, this is our way of protecting human rights here and abroad. and for a british government to turn round and say they dont— government to turn round and say they don't respect it all they want to leave _ they don't respect it all they want to leave it— they don't respect it all they want to leave it would be unthinkable. if to leave it would be unthinkable. if the uk to leave it would be unthinkable. if the uk withdrew from the echr, it would _ the uk withdrew from the echr, it would be _ the uk withdrew from the echr, it would be the — the uk withdrew from the echr, it would be the only— the uk withdrew from the echr, it would be the only country- the uk withdrew from the echr, it would be the only country in - the uk withdrew from the echr, it would be the only country in the l would be the only country in the history— would be the only country in the history of— would be the only country in the history of the _ would be the only country in the history of the council— would be the only country in the history of the council of- would be the only country in the history of the council of europe i would be the only country in the i history of the council of europe of 47 countries — history of the council of europe of 47 countries throughout _ history of the council of europe of 47 countries throughout europe i history of the council of europe of| 47 countries throughout europe to permanently — 47 countries throughout europe to permanently withdraw. _ 47 countries throughout europe to permanently withdraw. it - 47 countries throughout europe to permanently withdraw. it would i 47 countries throughout europe to i permanently withdraw. it would join belarus. _ permanently withdraw. it would join belarus. that— permanently withdraw. it would join belarus, that never— permanently withdraw. it would join belarus, that neverjoined _ permanently withdraw. it would join belarus, that neverjoined for- belarus, that neverjoined for obvious— belarus, that neverjoined for obvious reasons, _ belarus, that neverjoined for obvious reasons, and - belarus, that neverjoined for obvious reasons, and also - belarus, that neverjoined for. obvious reasons, and also russia belarus, that neverjoined for- obvious reasons, and also russia who was kicked _ obvious reasons, and also russia who was kicked out tiv— obvious reasons, and also russia who was kicked out by the _ obvious reasons, and also russia who was kicked out by the council of- was kicked out by the council of europe — was kicked out by the council of europe in— was kicked out by the council of europe in 2022 _ was kicked out by the council of europe in 2022 for— was kicked out by the council of europe in 2022 for invading - was kicked out by the council of- europe in 2022 for invading ukraine. a trademark— europe in 2022 for invading ukraine. a trademark posed _ europe in 2022 for invading ukraine. a trademark posed drawn _ europe in 2022 for invading ukraine. a trademark posed drawn up, - europe in 2022 for invading ukraine. a trademark posed drawn up, clear. a trademark posed drawn up, clear words but a disputed legacy. well, now to give us an insight into how the voters view all of this, scarlett maguire — director of the pollster jl partners — is here. that evening. give us a sense of how important migration is to the voters at the moment? it is

important migration is to the voters at the moment?— at the moment? it is a good question- — at the moment? it is a good question. migration is - at the moment? it is a good - question. migration is incredibly important, about one in three voters place it in their top three issues. but it is existential for the conservatives, it is important for the voters they need to win back. he will be thinking squarely about those who voted conservative in 2019, who are now undecided. you can see from focus groups this is an important issue. it doesn't have to be rwanda, it doesn't have to be echr, but they will have to deliver on it. �* , ., ., echr, but they will have to deliver onit., ., . on it. any idea at the demographic disari ? on it. any idea at the demographic disparity? demographic— on it. any idea at the demographic disparity? demographic disparity l on it. any idea at the demographic| disparity? demographic disparity is not massive. _ disparity? demographic disparity is not massive, it _ disparity? demographic disparity is not massive, it is _ disparity? demographic disparity is not massive, it is the _ disparity? demographic disparity is not massive, it is the 29 _ disparity? demographic disparity is not massive, it is the 29 seats, - disparity? demographic disparity is| not massive, it is the 29 seats, and then you see it in areas that are more concentrated, like in kent. thank you, scarlett. in a moment, i'll talk to labour's shadow immigration minister stephen kinnock, but first, for the conservatives, laura farrisjoins me. good evening, you heard simon

clarke, he said if this isn't resolved, it is a next essential crisis for the tories and they will lose at the next election. i5 crisis for the tories and they will lose at the next election.- lose at the next election. is he riuht? lose at the next election. is he riht? i lose at the next election. is he right? | think _ lose at the next election. is he right? | think it _ lose at the next election. is he right? i think it is an _ lose at the next election. is he j right? i think it is an important issue. it is one of the prime minister's five pledges to stop the boats. , , ., minister's five pledges to stop the boats. , , . , ., boats. yes. it is an existential crisis for _ boats. yes. it is an existential crisis for the _ boats. yes. it is an existential crisis for the government? - boats. yes. it is an existential crisis for the government? if i boats. yes. it is an existential. crisis for the government? if stop the boats, as you say, one of rishi sunak�*s five priorities doesn't get to first base, will he have failed? it is a test he set himself, it is an obvious failure if he doesn't manage to stop the boats? yes. an obvious failure if he doesn't manage to stop the boats? yes, he has invited — manage to stop the boats? yes, he has invited the _ manage to stop the boats? yes, he has invited the public _ manage to stop the boats? yes, he has invited the public to _ manage to stop the boats? yes, he has invited the public to judge - manage to stop the boats? yes, he has invited the public to judge him | has invited the public tojudge him by the five tests he set himself. he is not seeking to sidestep that, but i don't think you can over interpret today'sjudgment as an i don't think you can over interpret today's judgment as an indicator he has failed. but he said at the top of your piece, it was a majority decision, twojustices bound in one direction and the lord chief

justice, found in favour of the government. the government has indicated it is going to submit an application of appeal to the supreme court, which is highly likely to be granted. and the supreme court is not bound by the decision of any lower court. so it will be finally determined by the highest court. you are a lawyer. — determined by the highest court. you are a lawyer, what is the argument if it gets to the supreme court, given that the lower court said the decision was given on our adherence to the echr?— decision was given on our adherence to the echr? ., , ., ., ., to the echr? there was a fundamental difference as — to the echr? there was a fundamental difference as to — to the echr? there was a fundamental difference as to whether _ to the echr? there was a fundamental difference as to whether there - to the echr? there was a fundamental difference as to whether there had - difference as to whether there had been all there was a risk of a breach of the convention rights in the decision reached between the two views expressed in the court of appeal. last week, thejustice secretary said the government remain firmly in our adherence to the european court on human rights. the

issue is, twojudges found individuals arriving in rwanda may be at risk of being returned to their country of origin. which, if they were claiming asylum might be a further risk. the lord chiefjustice disagreed. he said the agreement between the united kingdom and rwanda are sufficiently robust, particularly with the monitoring obligations both sides had signed up to. but obligations both sides had signed up to. �* ., , obligations both sides had signed up to. �* .., , obligations both sides had signed up to. but it was a ma'ority decision? that to. but it was a ma'ority decision? that involves — to. but it was a majority decision? that involves home _ to. but it was a majority decision? that involves home office - to. but it was a majority decision? i that involves home office personnel being stationed permanently and it involves an independent monitoring committee and its being monitored. he thought that precluded the individuals... it he thought that precluded the individuals. . ._ he thought that precluded the individuals... it was a ma'ority decision. i individuals... it was a ma'ority decision, two i individuals... it was a ma'ority decision, two justices _ individuals... it was a majority decision, two justices were - individuals... it was a majority - decision, two justices were against that. can ijust ask decision, two justices were against that. can i just ask you decision, two justices were against that. can ijust ask you about decision, two justices were against that. can i just ask you about the echr? do you want this government to get out of the echr? do you want this government to take the uk out

of the echr?— this government to take the uk out of the echr? no, i don't and i don't think we have _ of the echr? no, i don't and i don't think we have reached _ of the echr? no, i don't and i don't think we have reached that - of the echr? no, i don't and i don't think we have reached that point. i of the echr? no, i don't and i don't. think we have reached that point. we need to focus on the next stage, by the way this happens in difficult cases that have constitutional and human rights... {lin cases that have constitutional and human rights...— cases that have constitutional and human rights... on the principle of the echr, you — human rights... on the principle of the echr, you disagree _ human rights... on the principle of the echr, you disagree with - the echr, you disagree with members of your government and actually, simon clarke, the former cabinet minister, you resolve this, if you have to get out of the echr to resolve this, you get out of the echr? but you disagree with that? i do disagree with that. i can go further. the principle here is about whether individuals can be removed to a safe country. that isn't a conservative principle. the origins of that are found in the nationality of that are found in the nationality of the asylum act in 2002, david blunkett�*s legislation. that has been the law for 20 years. none of that was disturbed or criticised by

the court of appeal today. the issue was whether rwanda meets the threshold for a safe country. whatever happens in this case concerns rwanda, but it doesn't defeat the principle that there could be removal to a safer country. we have an alternative arrangement working well with albania. there is a strong agreement in place and that has been highly effective. the number of albanians making the journey to the united kingdom in small boats has fallen by 99% between 2022 and 2023. it is not about the echr, _ between 2022 and 2023. it is not about the echr, it _ between 2022 and 2023. it is not about the echr, it is _ between 2022 and 2023. it is not about the echr, it is about - about the echr, it is about something else the supreme court rejects, what he could do is give it to another country because clearly albania is not the answer entirely. you had to fit to another country which wouldn't automatically repatriate migrants. do you think it is possible to to fit in another country because we haven't been able to find another country so far. i am

not a member— to find another country so far. i am not a member of— to find another country so far. i am not a member of the _ to find another country so far. i —n not a member of the government. but there have been third countries people have been returned to in the past. it is not impossible at all. the point is about the principle of removal to safe countries is not interfered with by this judgment, removal to safe countries is not interfered with by thisjudgment, it is squarely about rwanda and the issue about whether those individuals will be removed to their country of origin is the one the supreme court will consider later this year. supreme court will consider later this ear. ., ., supreme court will consider later this ear. ., ,, , ., , supreme court will consider later this ear. ., , . ., this year. thank you very much for “oinini this year. thank you very much for joining us- — turning to stephen kinnock for labour. what a labour government consider sending migrants to countries whose asylum system is regarded as robust, not rwanda, not simply sending them back to their home country regardless of danger? would labour consider that as an option? ida. regardless of danger? would labour consider that as an option?- consider that as an option? no, we believe it is — consider that as an option? no, we believe it is our— consider that as an option? no, we believe it is our duty _

consider that as an option? no, we believe it is our duty to _ consider that as an option? no, we believe it is our duty to process - believe it is our duty to process asylum claims efficiently and to deal with those who are not successful in their claims and remove them effectively and efficiently back to the same country from which they came, but by definition if there asylum case fails it is because they should be sent back to a safe country. in cases where there is a clear case for asylum, they should be granted leave to remain and be allowed to get on with their lives. that is basic way in which any asylum system should work. rather than chasing headlines and coming up with gimmicks, the government should be rolling up its sleeves, using some common sense, working in a pragmatic way to get these problems solved. instead, these damaging distractions like this rwanda plant which is completely unravelling. you like this rwanda plant which is completely unravelling. you are in favour of more _ completely unravelling. you are in favour of more safe _ completely unravelling. you are in favour of more safe and _ completely unravelling. you are in favour of more safe and legal- favour of more safe and legal routes? if as many came in by that method as came in a small boats, would you consider that a success? we are in favour of managed and

controlled pathways, such as the afghanistan scheme. it is right given what the people of afghanistan did, in many cases, standing up to the taliban and fighting alongside british forces, we owe them a gratitude. but those schemes have collapsed under this government, they are putting the dishes and plates stopping afghans taking those legal routes and instead coming on small boats. i legal routes and instead coming on small boats-— small boats. i am asking you about the principle. _ small boats. i am asking you about the principle. you _ small boats. i am asking you about the principle, you are _ small boats. i am asking you about the principle, you are in _ small boats. i am asking you about the principle, you are in favour - small boats. i am asking you about the principle, you are in favour of l the principle, you are in favour of more safe and legal routes? is it about the numbers? would you be as happy to see as migrants, we had 45,000 coming on small boats between march 2022 and march 2023, if that was the number coming by safe and legal routes, would you be content? we would have safe and legal manage pathways as part of the returns deal with european union. because of

boris johnson's botched with european union. because of borisjohnson's botched brexit, we crashed out of the dublin regulation and lost all the ability we had to return people to mainland europe. so we're not going to get a returns deal unless we put something on the table and that something needs to be safe, manage, carefully managed legal pathways. i safe, manage, carefully managed legal pathways-— legal pathways. i am asking you about the numbers, _ legal pathways. i am asking you about the numbers, the - legal pathways. i am asking you about the numbers, the net - legal pathways. i am asking you - about the numbers, the net migration numbers. if the net migration numbers. if the net migration numbers were 45,000 by safe and legal routes, would you think that was a success?— was a success? well, i am saying this has to _ was a success? well, i am saying this has to be _ was a success? well, i am saying this has to be part _ was a success? well, i am saying this has to be part of— was a success? well, i am saying this has to be part of a _ was a success? well, i am saying | this has to be part of a negotiation with the european union. i don't know how many negotiations you have been in, but you generally don't go into a negotiation with your cards face up on the table. so we will negotiate a deal with european union which enables us to return people who have come on small boats back to mainland europe. but in return for that, we know we will have to offer safe and manage pathways. that deal is what we will strike with european union because we will real build the

bridges that have been burned by the last seven years of tory chaos —— rebuild. one other thing. last seven years of tory chaos —— rebuild. one otherthing. rwanda is supposed to be a deterrent, but what was revealed in thejudgment supposed to be a deterrent, but what was revealed in the judgment today, rwanda can only process about 100 claims a year so the idea by sending 100 people from the uk to rwanda that would deter the 45,000 came last yearfor that would deter the 45,000 came last year for the that would deter the 45,000 came last yearfor the birds. so that would deter the 45,000 came last year for the birds. so the entire premise the rwanda deal as it is opposed to do, but it has no chance of acting as a deterrent. i’m chance of acting as a deterrent. i'm afraid i chance of acting as a deterrent. i'm afraid i am — chance of acting as a deterrent. i'm afraid i am going to have to stop you there. stephen cilic, thank you very much. we have run out of time. —— stephen kinnock. the scandal of undercover police officers spying on women in activist groups, gaining their trust and duping them into sexual relationships with them, even fathering their children, is arguably one of the most damaging things to have happened within modern policing. the undercover policing inquiry — set up to examine the scale

of the tactics deployed and overseen by the metropolitan police from the �*60s onwards — delivered its interim report today, and has found that such actions were notjustified, and that the unit, the special demonstration squad, should have been disbanded early on. the chair of the inquiry — the former seniorjudge sirjohn mitting — said most groups infiltrated by the sds posed no threat and the end did notjustify the means that the unit used. secretary theresa may. theresa may ordered this inquiry in 2014 as home secretary, after a report into the policing of the stephen lawrence murder revealed that the sds had spied on the lawrence family. i don't say this lightly, but i think that the greatest possible scrutiny is now needed into what has taken place. and so, given the gravity of what has now been uncovered, i have decided that a public inquiry, led

by a judge, is necessary to investigate undercover policing and the operation of the sds. today, the interim report said almost all of the sds undercover targets between 1968 and 1982 were unjustified. the report said in the era of the cold war and the troubles, the infiltration of groups which in fact threatened the safety or well—being of the state could also have been justified. in the period covered, only three groups penetrated by the sds satisfied these criteria. the great majority of deployments by the sds in this period did not. those deployments, the report found, inevitably required the undercover officer, male orfemale, to befriend members of the target groups and to enter into their personal and political lives. and those actions, mitting concluded, were not a legitimate police tactic in these circumstances. "the question is whether or not the end justifies the means.

i've come to the firm conclusion that for a unit of a police force, it did not, and that had the use of these means been publicly known at the time, the sds would have been brought to a rapid end." future stages of the report will draw more general conclusions about the attitude of police officers and managers within the unit towards deceitful sexual relationships. but it had this to say now, "putting to one side the risk that sexual relationships might develop, this intrusion into the lives of many hundreds of people in this era required cogentjustification before it should have been contemplated as a police tactic." the met police today repeated previous apologies it had made for the actions of its officers. in a statement, commanderjon savell said the force recognised that enormous distress had been caused and apologised to women deceived by officers into sexual relationships, to the families of the deceased children whose identities

were used by officers, and to those who suffered a miscarriage ofjustice because of the actions of sds officers. tonight, this programme speaks exclusively to three women who are all listed as core participants in the inquiry. as their relationships and experiences occurred in the 1990s and 2000s, they won't give their evidence until next year, at the earliest. eleanor fairbraida is giving her first broadcast interview since waiving her anonymity. lindsey — not her real name — is speaking to the media for the first time. and alison — again, an assumed name — is also sharing her story. they're aware of at least 50 women who had sexual relationships with undercover male officers. when i spoke to the women earlier, eleanor began with her experience. i was an environmental activist in nottingham in 2003. i was a young person who was just trying to make a positive change in the world.

and in walked mark kennedy — at the time, calling himself mark stone. and he was really interested in activism, and he kind of ingratiated himself in the group. and he moved into my house. i lived with him over two years. by 2008, we were very close and we had a brief intimate relationship. and then in 2010, ifound out that he was an undercover police officer. do you remember back then what your reaction was? i was completely stunned and flabbergasted, because it didn't make any sense. this man had been one of my best friends for seven years. he had lived in my house. i'd had an intimate relationship with him for a while. how could he be a police officer?

like, how was it right that a police officer could be sort of inserted into our lives in this way? tell me about the emotional and psychological impact that all this had on you. it's just completely thrown my entire kind of understanding of how we can be treated as citizens who are campaigning for the world to be a better place that, actually, we are treated in such a way, with such disdain that we will have police officers inserted into our lives. sleeping with us. and notes and records kept on us. i think that this is something in my head that should have been done by the stasi in east germany, not in our country. it isn'tjust special branch who are doing this. it's going right up into the higher echelons of government. and they are signing off about it, they have known it has happened all this time.

and when i looked at the authorisations for targeting me, it's signed off at every level. it goes from one kind of level to another, all the way up to commander level. and to me, all of them are culpable. so, alison, how were you involved in this, how were you enmeshed in this? so, i had a relationship with somebody called mark cassidy. i knew him as mark cassidy. i later discovered his name was markjenner. from 1995 to 2000. so we lived together for five years. i was a member of a political group in hackney that was involved in trade union politics and antiracist politics, antifascist politics. and i thought we were very much in love. he disappeared from my life in 2000, in spring 2000, and it didn't add up. just almost like overnight?

every one of these officers had an exit strategy that we now know, which was to have a breakdown, an emotional breakdown. so there was a bit of a build—up to that breakdown, but then in the spring of 2000, yeah, he left a note on the table and he disappeared. he came back for ten days and then he disappeared, and i've never seen him since. you're in a situation where, actually, you might have had children with the man called mark cassidy. yes, i desperately wanted children with mark. i met him when i was 29, he left me when i was 34. we were in relationship counselling for a year. and the reality was, he was married with his own children at the same time as he was in a relationship with me. i think it was possibly one of the only decent things he did, which was to not have children with me. but i think the issue of children is very significant in this whole

scandal because some women have had children with undercover officers. some women have lost the opportunity to have children because they stole some of our most fertile years. and the officers with their wives had children. i wonder what you feel about the officers' partners and wives who knew nothing about this, are they victims too in this? absolutely, we see them absolutely as victims of the same institutional sexism and misogyny that we have been victim to. but i suppose the bit of the story we're resistant to being stuck in is the bit where we are duped victims. because actually, these are notjust normal lying boyfriends. these are people who have got the backing of the state. these officers had a whole backroom team and managers who were supporting and facilitating their deceit. and what we're seeing is that throughout the inquiry is the police's priority is not to protect the public. their priority is to

protect themselves. how much do you know about what's happened to some of these former undercover officers? we don't know very much. however, the ones that we do know, it doesn't look good. so we know about vince miller, whose real name was vince harvey, who had four sexual relationships in the first set of hearings, so in the 19705. and he went on to become the director of the national criminal intelligence service. lindsey, what was your involvement in this scandal? so, ironically, i wasn't even. a political activist at this point in my life when i met a man called carl o'leary, whose real name - is actually protected _ by the undercover policing inquiry. he appeared into a social circle -

of mine, people who were politically active at that point in their lives. and very quickly, he ingratiated himself into that group - of very intelligent, - fairly discerning people. we became involved in a sexual relationship i together for about a year. and when did you begin to suspect something? so, i suspected nothing. so for the years from 2002, i when our relationship ended, until 2015, when i found out his identity, - i suspected nothing. when you finally knew definitively, what was the impact on you? i guess anxiety was the most noticeable impact. _ sleeplessness. paranoia in the entire activist group. - certainly, the paranoia remains to this day that we could - still be being spied on. how many times have you asked to see your files? i have asked personally. the once and was written

to by the commissioner of the met saying that there is nothing - they have to disclose to me. what do you make of that? this is one of our biggest campaign asks, really, i is that we do see our files and that all of the activists _ who were spied on see their files. alison, you want yourfile, do you know that file actually exists? well, it's a very good question because, no, i don't know that it does. i had the same response. i made several requests for my files and was told the commissioner has nothing he is obliged to share with you. recently, through the inquiry, our lawyers requested our registry file numbers, which is the number of our special branch file and there didn't appear to be one for me. so that is curious. so you might have been disappeared from the system? it's possible that some of these officers chose to write us out of these reports, in order to cover their tracks. what we don't know first of all is,

how many women were targeted and how many people targeted them? u nless unless the inquiry stops no, unless inquiry stops enabling the police secrecy, we are never really going to find that out. because if you don't know the cover name of the officer, if you don't know the activist who was police, you don't know whether you have had a relationship with them or not. this unit has been secret since 1968. and that has enabled this behaviour. it has enabled unit to stay kind of embedded in our progressive movement, political movements, but it has also enabled the men within these units to behave in atrocious, abusive ways. and now is the time for transparency. now is the time to kind

of blow the lid off it and actually look at everything that has gone wrong with it and to learn from it. and until the inquiry does that, then the full answers are not there. lindsey, for you, will it ever be over, report on the report? well, it has changedl the course of my life. so probably, it won't be over. i hope the conclusions i of the inquiry are robust enough to give us closure. i hope we see our files. but if we don't receive satisfactory. information and the mechanisms for this never to happenj again put into place, then it certainly won't be over for me as a direct activist. - eleanor, what about you? well, for me, i want the state to stop doing covert surveillance of political activist groups. and, yes, this needs to not just be exposed, but it also needs to be stopped.

i'm joined now by dai davies, who served for 30 years in the metropolitan police, becoming the operational unit commander in charge of royal protection. thank you forjoining us. what do thank you for “oining us. what do ou make thank you for “oining us. what do you make of — thank you forjoining us. what do you make of what _ thank you forjoining us. what do you make of what you _ thank you forjoining us. what do you make of what you have - thank you forjoining us. what do | you make of what you have heard thank you forjoining us. what do - you make of what you have heard from these women? first you make of what you have heard from these women?— these women? first thing i would sa , m these women? first thing i would say. my heart _ these women? first thing i would say. my heart goes _ these women? first thing i would say, my heart goes out _ these women? first thing i would say, my heart goes out to - these women? first thing i would say, my heart goes out to them l these women? first thing i would i say, my heart goes out to them and these women? first thing i would - say, my heart goes out to them and i actually condemn the units and those of particularly in that unit, that use deceit, deception in this way to embed themselves with these women. there is no excuse, their moral compasses were way off target. the question has to be asked, who was in charge, who authorised it and how was it allowed to go on for such a long time with groups that allegedly now with the benefit of hindsight... hindsight is a wonderful, wonderful mechanism. i go back to 1968, 69 when ijoined the police force. there was a huge movement worldwide

of revolutionaries and all the rest of revolutionaries and all the rest of it. i think of revolutionaries and all the rest of it. ithink it of revolutionaries and all the rest of it. i think it was perfectly reasonable from a public order point of view to set up this unit. what then took place over a number of years is for this inquiry to determine. it has taken £64 million, five years to get to an interim. how long will the next report be? that is a bit of an indictment in my mind, how can it possibly take this long for the justice of these women and the vast majority of officers if the report hasn't mentioned, the last paragraph says the vast majority of them actually behaved lawfully and thought they were doing the right thing. that is for others tojudge now. the right thing. that is for others to judge now— the right thing. that is for others to judge now. they thought it was the riiht to judge now. they thought it was the right thing _ to judge now. they thought it was the right thing because _ to judge now. they thought it was the right thing because it - to judge now. they thought it was the right thing because it was - to judge now. they thought it was| the right thing because it was right to the top of command it was sanctioned. it seems lawless and chaotic but one person was a mansion, vince miller in the 1970s,

had sexual relations with various women and went on to be the director of the intelligence service. it was thought to be a good thing wasn't it, no matter what happened to these women? i it, no matter what happened to these women? .. ., it, no matter what happened to these women? ., ., , ., women? i cannot answer for those women? i cannot answer for those women and _ women? i cannot answer for those women and the — women? i cannot answer for those women and the defence _ women? i cannot answer for those women and the defence of - women? i cannot answer for those women and the defence of that - women and the defence of that person, and he is entitled to a defence. we have heard the sides of three women, i haven't had an opportunity to examine them and others. the inquiry have and they have come to that conclusion. i would not take away an iota of what they have said, it was disgraceful, should never have been allowed and particularly should never promote anyone who had behaved in this immoral way in order to gain whatever evidence they thought they would gain. the policemen and some women are human, some are prolific. we have murderers in the ranks the police. let's put things in perspective slightly, i hope. the vast majority do a good job, most in

this case were doing sometimes dangerous undercover work. they were not all members of the salvation army these groups, they were people out to cause mayhem. i have been in so many riots and disturbances, i have been hospitalised many times in some of these demonstrations. what i am trying to say is, they were not all saints. . .. am trying to say is, they were not all saints. ., ,, , ., am trying to say is, they were not all saints. . ~' , ., , . am trying to say is, they were not all saints. ., ,, , ., , . ., all saints. thank you very much for “oinini us all saints. thank you very much for joining us tonight. _ there are reports that asparatame — the sweetener in products all over the world, from chewing gum to diet cola — is soon likely to be declared a possible carcinogen by the who's cancer research agency. but what's the science behind such a potential move, here's kate. 200 times sweeter than sugar, aspartame is used in everything from diet sodas to yogurt, and even chewable vitamins. the us food and drug administration says the sweetener is one of the most studied food additives, and still finds it can be safely used. but aspartame hasn't been without controversy. today's reports, which suggest the sweetener could be labelled possibly carcinogenic,

refer to the world health organization's international agency for research on cancer. that group is due to report on aspartame in two weeks' time. the iarc rates substances' potential to cause cancer like this. at the top are things we know to be carcinogenic to humans — things like tobacco, alcohol and sun exposure. then there are things that are probably carcinogenic. below that — and this is where sources told reuters aspartame may be placed — are things that are possibly carcinogenic. other things in this category include pickled vegetables, carpentry and exposure while working as a dry cleaner. to be classed as possibly carcinogenic, there only needs to be limited evidence of the substance having cancer—causing properties in humans and less than sufficient evidence in animals. so, let's look for less than sufficient animal evidence first. in the early 2000s, italian researchers fed mice high levels of aspartame — some with more than 50 times the recommended human dose. they concluded more of those mice experienced malignant tumours. but the cause of the lesions was questioned. in 2009, the european food safety authority examined this research

and still found there was no and still found there was no indication of any carcinogenic indication of any carcinogenic potential from the sweetener. potential from the sweetener. what about aspartame's what about aspartame's impact on humans, then? impact on humans, then? several studies have several studies have failed to find a link failed to find a link between artificially sweetened drink between artificially sweetened drink consumption and cancer. consumption and cancer. but last year, a french study — but last year, a french study — which included more which included more than 100,000 people — than 100,000 people — looked at sweetener consumption over looked at sweetener consumption over the entirety of people's diets. the entirety of people's diets. they found those who consumed more they found those who consumed more than average aspartame were 1.15 than average aspartame were 1.15 times more likely to develop cancer compared to people who didn't consume any. committee — expert committee now, that is a very small finding, but it could be the group considers studies like this limited evidence. there is, however, another bigger issue here. let's go back to this rating system. what's important to help us decide whether to smoke a known carcinogen or work night shifts which is probably carcinogenic, isn't just the fact a hazard exists. it's the level of risk involved that matters, how likely that hazard is to actually happen, and this isn't designed to tell us that at all. what will help unpick aspartame's risk is that in two weeks,

another world health organization