voiceover: this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines and all the main news stories for you at the top of the hour, straight after this programme. welcome to hardtalk. i am stephen sackur. the western liberal tradition price intellectual freedom, tolerance and the power of reason. from academia to politics, there is supposed to be a shared commitment to fact—finding and good—faith debate. that is the theory. what about reality? my guest today, peter boghossian, is a philosopher who quit his us university post claiming academia had been corrupted by work ideology and the grievance culture. it is now a leading figure in an and i woke movement gaining political traction. but is he stoking a

dangerous culture war? peter boghossian, welcome to hardtalk. i think we have to begin with that word, work. it is so widely used now. i am mindful that its origins in the united states were amongst the black community who insisted, demanded that people should wake up, get woke to injustice. that is a positive. you invest the word with a great deal of negativity. the word with a great deal of negativity-— the word with a great deal of neaativi . ~ , ., ., negativity. why? it is not that i invest the — negativity. why? it is not that i invest the word _ negativity. why? it is not that i invest the word with - negativity. why? it is not that i invest the word with a - negativity. why? it is not that i invest the word with a great| i invest the word with a great deal of negativity. it is that

it has become a catchword. we can use other words, the author of cynical... fix, can use other words, the author of cynical- - -_ of cynical... a british writer. . . _ of cynical... a british writer... exactly. - of cynical... a british i writer... exactly. called of cynical... a british - writer... exactly. called a critical social _ writer... exactly. called a critical socialjustice, - critical social justice, people, people call it regressive leftism, wesley yang because of the successor ideology. it is an ideology that goes by different names but it basically means the same thing. there is a suite of conclusions. for example, author says that any disparity in outcome is due to a system. the system is the cause of the disparity. another bestselling author says it is not if racism occurred, but how it occurred. so, woke itself is a way to think about the way in a general orientation towards social reality.— social reality. the analysis ou social reality. the analysis you allude _ social reality. the analysis you allude to _ social reality. the analysis you allude to is _ social reality. the analysis you allude to is about - social reality. the analysis you allude to is about the | social reality. the analysis - you allude to is about the way in which so many problems to do with lack ofjustice as they would see it, problems are to

do with systems and structures, and how it can be aggressively by looking at the behaviour of individuals. d0 by looking at the behaviour of individuals.— individuals. do not accept that? no, _ individuals. do not accept that? no, that— individuals. do not accept that? no, that correct. i individuals. do not accept| that? no, that correct. let individuals. do not accept - that? no, that correct. let us linger on that for a second. we can have an entire system into which nobody was a racist, but the system itself would be racist. you could have a conspiracy without any conspirators. again, getting back to the idea of disparity, it is the belief that systems themselves are fundamental problematic, and if you want to fight for racialjustice, for fight for racial justice, for example, fight for racialjustice, for example, you have two go after the system. 50 example, you have two go after the system-— example, you have two go after the system. so when it comes to ou the system. so when it comes to you using — the system. so when it comes to you using the — the system. so when it comes to you using the word _ the system. so when it comes to you using the word woke, - the system. so when it comes to you using the word woke, you i you using the word woke, you have taken a word that you know was used to indicate that black people wanted others to wake up to the injustice they suffered, and you now take pride in using it, as you would say, amongst other words as well, it indicate something deeply

negative. isn't that in itself is a choice you have made to use the word woke in a way that signals you don't care about the way other people use the word? many people still think that it word? many people still think thatitis word? many people still think that it is very important and good to be woke. i that it is very important and good to be woke.— good to be woke. i care very much about _ good to be woke. i care very much about how _ good to be woke. i care very much about how people - good to be woke. i care very much about how people use | good to be woke. i care very - much about how people use word. and that is why i use the word in the way that i do. but for the interview, if you would like to use critical social justice, we can use that as a placeholder. so the word woke itself, and again, there are kernels of truth within the ideology that are extremely important. there have been egregious examples of injustice and the word woke, the umbrella has expanded from racial issues to gender issues to trans issues, etc. but, yes, it is a deliberate and conscious choice that i use. deliberate and conscious choice that i use-— that i use. you... i recognised us then that — that i use. you... i recognised us then that there _ that i use. you... i recognised us then that there are - that i use. you... i recognised us then that there are still - us then that there are still huge issues, for example, in your home country of america. if you look at the record in

terms of incarceration, in terms of incarceration, in terms of incarceration, in terms of the members of prisoners on death row, a whole different set of data would tell you as a guest on this show not so long ago, that in the end there is something systemic and structural about the way in which racism still works in america. would you not accept that?— accept that? no, i don't. can ou accept that? no, i don't. can you give _ accept that? no, i don't. can you give me _ accept that? no, i don't. can you give me a _ accept that? no, i don't. can you give me a single - accept that? no, i don't. can| you give me a single example accept that? no, i don't. can. you give me a single example of a law currently in place that is systemically racist against a certain group of people? flan a certain group of people? can ou tell a certain group of people? can you tell me — a certain group of people? can you tell me that _ a certain group of people? can you tell me that you think the laws are implemented in a way thatis laws are implemented in a way that is completely without prejudice and discrimination by thejudiciary, by the police service, by all those in authority not united states of america? ,, ., , america? sure, i will answer our america? sure, i will answer your question. _ america? sure, i will answer your question. the _ america? sure, i will answer your question. the answer. america? sure, i will answer| your question. the answer to thatis your question. the answer to that is no. usually when you think about systems, giving about... there is an intrinsic bias in a system, usually a

legal bias or... and so i cannot think of a single example and i go around the world and the united states and i ask people, and i have yet to have one, and i got my let me give you what you are looking for. i think that we have very serious problems with race in our country, and much less so with gender, but very serious problems with race. i think we need to have open and honest conversations about this. the remedy for this, however, conversations about this. the remedy forthis, however, is not as i mentioned before the bestselling author eva max candy says the remedy to part of cremation is not present as cremation. of cremation is not present as cremation-— of cremation is not present as cremation. ~ . ., ., cremation. we have had him on the shovv- _ cremation. we have had him on the shovv- he — cremation. we have had him on the show. he says _ cremation. we have had him on the show. he says absolutely i the show. he says absolutely what he is about his treating people equally, seeing people treated equally in a society. you read the book stamped in which he uses that line, that is not what he says because the advocates for equity. and that is not the same as an equality

based system. that would treat people the same and and equity —based people, we treat people in terms of outcomes. we try and jerry rigged the system for certain outcomes. if someone has oppression variables in their past document he would say you need equity to get to equality. say you need equity to get to euuali . ., �* , say you need equity to get to euuali . ., �*, , equality. not let's get stuck on others — equality. not let's get stuck on others who _ equality. not let's get stuck on others who are - equality. not let's get stuck on others who are not - equality. not let's get stuck on others who are not in i equality. not let's get stuck| on others who are not in the studio to discuss it with us. let us stick to youanmi, let's stick to your case.— stick to your case. this is extremely _ stick to your case. this is extremely important - stick to your case. this is - extremely important because this is the essence of if we can both agree, which i assume that you do, that there are disparities in incarceration rates, to yours example, is the solution and equity —based solution and equity —based solution to disseminate against people, for example, white heterosexual male to try to remediate those injustices? i don't think the answer is yes. i think the answer is equality, that we need to give every american and education the first rate. i think we need to look at reasons that... and if you want to look at it in a system is based way, i have no problem with that. you system is based way, i have no problem with that.— problem with that. you have 'ust problem with that. you have just used — problem with that. you have just used a _ problem with that. you have just used a phrase _ problem with that. you have just used a phrase that - problem with that. you have just used a phrase that is i problem with that. you have | just used a phrase that is very important. you said you want to

help educate americans. you were a trained academic, you are a trained academic, you had are a trained academic, you had a position in the philosophy department at portland state university. you chose, in the end, to leave it. and you said at the time... you said that you regarded your university is an ideological community that had been captured by ideology. you said i can no longer work here, i don't fit the mould. correct. here, i don't fit the mould. correct-— here, i don't fit the mould. correct. ., ~ , ., ., correct. you think your own university — correct. you think your own university had _ correct. you think your own university had been - correct. you think your own university had been utterly| university had been utterly corrupted. university had been utterly corrupted-— corrupted. completing ideological _ corrupted. completing ideological captured. i corrupted. completing l ideological captured. on corrupted. completing - ideological captured. on what basis do you _ ideological captured. on what basis do you say _ ideological captured. on what basis do you say that? - ideological captured. on what basis do you say that? the i basis do you say that? the senate had _ basis do you say that? the senate had passed - basis do you say that? tie: senate had passed that resolution is about criticising critical race theory, an absolute... it critical race theory, an absolute. . ._ critical race theory, an absolute. . . absolute... it wasn't to do with the — absolute... it wasn't to do with the fact _ absolute... it wasn't to do with the fact that - absolute... it wasn't to do with the fact that the - with the fact that the university had actually censored you, found you to have violated two different... three different ways you violated the code of your university. {lilia code of your university. ok, those are — code of your university. ok, those are two _

code of your university. ok, those are two separate - code of your university. tl, those are two separate issues. what evidence do i have the evidence has been ideological captured, and the grievance studied dust mite we need to explain a bit about the fake papers because a part of your academic story, i don't want to put words in your mouth but you seem to be more and more disillusioned with what you saw as the sort of progressive woke capture, intellectual capture ca ptu re, intellectual ca ptu re of your university, capture, intellectual capture of your university, and you decided to expose it. along with a couple _ decided to expose it. along with a couple of— decided to expose it. along with a couple of others. - decided to expose it. along | with a couple of others. you launched a hoax project in which he wrote a series of academic papers aimed at different humanities journals, which are all peer reviewed, all academic. and you filled these papers with absolute nonsense. fake research, fake data. you did it over a year or morally reprehensible conclusions like leasing men like we leashed dogs.- like we leashed dogs. other thins like we leashed dogs. other things that _ like we leashed dogs. other things that deal _ like we leashed dogs. other things that deal with - like we leashed dogs. other| things that deal with orifices that we can't talk about on your show. those papers were

accessed to... your show. those papers were accessed to. . ._ your show. those papers were accessed to... hang on, let us be very accurate _ accessed to... hang on, let us be very accurate because - accessed to... hang on, let us be very accurate because it. accessed to... hang on, let us be very accurate because it is| be very accurate because it is important. i think you right between the three of you up to 20 papers, seven of which ultimately are peer reviewed and appeared injournals. find and appeared in “ournals. and then we got _ and appeared injournals. fific then we got caught by the wall streetjournal and exposed street journal and exposed before we streetjournal and exposed before we had a chance to... for the other papers to go through. for the other papers to go through-— for the other papers to go throu~h. l, l l, l, l, through. you claim that what ou did through. you claim that what you did exposed _ through. you claim that what you did exposed this - you did exposed this intellectual vacuity of this captured university progressive mentality, right? hat captured university progressive mentality, right?— mentality, right? not exactly. if it were merely _ mentality, right? not exactly. if it were merely vacuous, - mentality, right? not exactly. if it were merely vacuous, it l if it were merely vacuous, it wouldn't be that much of a problem, but it afforded certain conclusions that were not based in that were moral... it forwarded morally fashionable conclusions, and so we played to those morally fashionable conclusions. but on the research misconduct, among the research misconduct, among the charges, i think you will

like this, among the charges they brought me up on, they brought me up on plagiarism. they said that i plagiarised adolf hitler's mine come. it was true, i did plagiarise that. i admitted was true, i did plagiarise that. iadmitted in was true, i did plagiarise that. i admitted in testimony in a sworn that i plagiarised that. then they found innocent. and what they did, one of the things that they got you for in terms of violations was not getting prior approvalfor running was called a human experiment, because, in essence, you were putting on trial the academics who do the peer reviewing and run these journals. peer reviewing and run these “ournals. , l, l, journals. instead of saying, well, journals. instead of saying, well. we — journals. instead of saying, well, we have _ journals. instead of saying, well, we have people - journals. instead of saying, well, we have people in - journals. instead of saying, - well, we have people in charge of peer—reviewed journals, why did you publish this? why did you publish data that was simply impossible... this data was utterly impossible, and so instead of asking them to defend that, they said that it was unethical because the journal editors themselves were

human subjects. but journal editors themselves were human subjects.— human sub'ects. but you see, the wider — human subjects. but you see, the wider point _ human subjects. but you see, the wider point is _ human subjects. but you see, the wider point is that - human subjects. but you see, the wider point is that you - the wider point is that you didn't do this project in a way that really made your findings and your conclusion is valid. you didn't, for example, try to fake a paperforan you didn't, for example, try to fake a paperfor an economics journal or for a chemistry or a sciencejournal. to see journal or for a chemistry or a science journal. to see whether it wasn't so much that it was a problem here with the ideology of the humanities departments you are trying to expose, but maybe there was a different probe, that peer review is collapsing, there are not enough academics who want to seriously do peer review and the standards are sweeping across the board will stop you can't know whether that is the right conclusion because you didn't do a control.- didn't do a control. again, helen has _ didn't do a control. again, helen has a _ didn't do a control. again, helen has a great - didn't do a control. again, | helen has a great response didn't do a control. again, - helen has a great response to that. to say that your neighbour has a problem with cockroaches in their house does not demean the fact that you have rats in your house. i am not saying... in fact, i will

say there is something in psychology all the replication crisis where 50%, half of papers and studies can't be replicated. the problem is that there is a corruption in scholarship in certain fields of literature, and that corruption is not only affecting institutional policy in the united states, but it is getting out into public policies so we are making public policies around morally fashionable nonfalsifiable conclusions.— fashionable nonfalsifiable conclusions. but isn't there another problem _ conclusions. but isn't there another problem with - conclusions. but isn't there another problem with the l conclusions. but isn't there i another problem with the way you are trying to expose it? that is you are saying that these woke people running our universities, particularly our humanitarian departments right now, they have a preconceived set of ideas, and all they want from researchers for it to reinforce their ideas. but don't you also now have a set of preformed ideas? you hate this woke culture and you launched this project of yours specifically to undermine the woke culture. you therefore had

your own set of preordained conclusions that you were going to reach come what may. that is false because — to reach come what may. that is false because we _ to reach come what may. that is false because we release - to reach come what may. that is false because we release the - false because we release the studies, we had published note papers we would have said we published note papers. if you mean by that i stick to certain principles, that are intrinsic to the enlightenment tradition, i believe that indispensable for the functioning of civil society, the answer is yes, i believe in free speech, open enquiry, people should have a cognitive liberty to believe what they want without an authoritarianism especially in the university context. yes i do have my own set of principles. those are processes of open discourse and free enquiry. of open discourse and free ennui . l, , , enquiry. you pride yourself because — enquiry. you pride yourself because you _ enquiry. you pride yourself because you have - enquiry. you pride yourself because you have written l enquiry. you pride yourself because you have written a enquiry. you pride yourself- because you have written a book on how to have difficult impossible conversations with people you disagree with. to do that you have to have some kind of sympathy and willingness to listen to the other side false

100%. seems like you are losing that in certain fields, university across the united states are committed to the diversity and inclusion programme they want to see that expanded different academic fields and departments, you say you can either have free speech at university or you can have a diversity, equity and inclusion programme. it is literally impossible to have both. correct, stand that statement. where is your willingness to have a nuance and grey area between the black and the white? i between the black and the white? ., l, between the black and the white? ~ l, , l, between the black and the white? ~' l, , l, l, , white? i think that is a false dichotomy. _ white? i think that is a false dichotomy, it _ white? i think that is a false dichotomy, it is _ white? i think that is a false dichotomy, it is not - white? i think that is a false dichotomy, it is not a - white? i think that is a false i dichotomy, it is not a question of nuance it gets faxed to karl popper enters idea of tolerance. we have ideologues and institutional positions whose sole purpose is to limit the speech of certain individuals and to, to make it more difficult for people to speak open and honestly for sincere enquiries to ask

questions. the question is what kind of institution, what is the purpose of the university, what kind of institutions do we want to have? it is clear to me we should have truth based institutions, a psychologist at nyu city either have social justice institutions or based institutions.— institutions. let's broaden this out beyond _ institutions. let's broaden this out beyond the - institutions. let's broaden this out beyond the field l institutions. let's broaden| this out beyond the field of universities on campers and talk about society and culture as a whole. you appear to be saying there is some sort of free—speech crisis, that people like you with your message about what is happening and culture are being censored, no platform, your voice is somehow being controlled, restricted diminished. isee being controlled, restricted diminished. i see no evidence of that. l, l l, , of that. no, we will clarify that. i have _ of that. no, we will clarify that. i have a _ of that. no, we will clarify that. i have a very - of that. no, we will clarify that. i have a very large i that. i have a very large platform, i do not feel, i'm sitting talking to you right now. how censored could i be. i'm extremely fortunate that i have a platform and and operate

independently, ijust independently, i just interviewed a independently, ijust interviewed a guy at ucf in florida, charles needy a professor of psychology, and not the same conversation society this would not matter but he was hispanic he had all the impression variables they came for him and they fired him. he did not have a platform there were so many people who have been marginalised respect —— afraid to speak out, you said you wanted to broaden... go ahead. said you wanted to broaden... go ahead-— go ahead. the point is surely there is freedom _ go ahead. the point is surely there is freedom of - go ahead. the point is surely i there is freedom of expression but some people in operating that freedom of expression seemed to think they have a right to avoid the pushback, that might come up there free expression. a lot of things that people like you then complain about, the pushback, the protest isn't that part the job? if you'd choose to take a stand on these sorts of issues should you respect the right people to stand up to and say no, this guy got plain wrong.

everybody should do that and functioning civil society. people should be encouraged to do that stop you want to be clear about something. we are talking about an ideology that does not in —— participate in the same rules and engagements. blowing air horns at events or conferences or interrupting speakers or deep platforming speakers, this is not the counter to individuals, but we should be doing is encouraging exactly what you just said, if you want to protest, great. abate you want to protest, great. are ou you want to protest, great. are you saying — you want to protest, great. are you saying you _ you want to protest, great. are you saying you and your professional life has suffered intimidation, threats, worse? physical violence, spat on, constant harassment, it is not about me it is about the kind of society we want to have in the kind of institutions we want to have an effect we need to construct institutions and bodies of literature that we can trust, right now in the us and the anglosphere have a legitimation crisis. we have a crisis of confidence in our

institutions, people do not trust experts, tom nicholls wrote a great book, the death of expertise, we need experts to have a function in society, we have to have experts. your olitical we have to have experts. your political bedfellows _ we have to have experts. your political bedfellows in - we have to have experts. your political bedfellows in the - we have to have experts. your political bedfellows in the us and internationally are not people who rely on expert and evidence and facts and truth telling, they are people who it seems rely a great deal on populism, nonselling messages around nationalism, and fear mongering. around nationalism, and fear mongering-— around nationalism, and fear mongering. you should invite them on and _ mongering. you should invite them on and have _ mongering. you should invite them on and have that? - mongering. you should invite them on and have that? i - mongering. you should invite l them on and have that? i have mongering. you should invite i them on and have that? i have a north start their street. you have a north _ north start their street. you have a north start - north start their street. you have a north start and - north start their street. you have a north start and that is true. crosstalk. viktor 0rban in hungary, you had a fellowship at one of his universities.— fellowship at one of his universities. �* , l, l, l, universities. are you going to let me speak? _ universities. are you going to let me speak? people - universities. are you going to let me speak? people do - universities. are you going to let me speak? people do not| let me speak? people do not know this — let me speak? people do not know this they _ let me speak? people do not know this they do _ let me speak? people do not know this they do not - let me speak? people do not know this they do not extend let me speak? people do not i know this they do not extend to you and your last you have committed to a defence of viktor 0rban's hungry saying it is a place where you freedom is very real, very genuine and you

take money from a university which is funded by his governor. that does not seem to sit easily with your own self—description as an avowed liberal academic? why? self—description as an avowed liberalacademic? why? because of viktor 0rban if he is known for anything, of viktor 0rban if he is known foranything, is of viktor 0rban if he is known for anything, is known for his proclamation that he is an illiberal politician.- illiberal politician. what i was going _ illiberal politician. what i was going to _ illiberal politician. what i was going to say - illiberal politician. what i was going to say and - illiberal politician. what i was going to say and i i illiberal politician. what i l was going to say and i will still say it because it applies you mentioned viktor 0rban, i am happy to talk about that, you said some of my bedfellows, if somebody a former writing partner, somebody with whom i have other substantive disagreements if they say something, if they want to take plastic out of the ocean and i think that is a good idea i will say yes, i agree with you. i don't think this is a political thing, i don't think this is a politicalthing, i i don't think this is a political thing, i don't think the axes are relative terms of liberal and conservative anymore, the more accurate is authoritarian and un— authoritarian. i took a senior

position in budapest in hungary. b. position in budapest in hungary-— position in budapest in hunua .�* l, l, l, l, l hungary. a foundation financed to the tune _ hungary. a foundation financed to the tune of _ hungary. a foundation financed to the tune of $1 _ hungary. a foundation financed to the tune of $1 billion - hungary. a foundation financed to the tune of $1 billion by - to the tune of $1 billion by the viktor 0rban government. i would do it again and i had an amazing time. my position there, i went around the country and the carpathian basin, and i spoke about quote, literally anything i wanted to speak about copy but you also as a very well—informed individual know his government closed on a university in budapest, the central university.— budapest, the central university. budapest, the central universi . ~ l, l, university. do you know what he did that? i _ university. do you know what he did that? i have _ university. do you know what he did that? i have interviewed - did that? i have interviewed the president of that university so i know pretty well, i have spent time in hungary on how that 0rban is running politics in hungary. i am not hungry in or are you, yourcore am not hungry in or are you, your core principle you said was commitment to liberal freedoms? you cannot tell me, you cannot look me in the eye and you think that 0rban is committed to your brand of liberal freedom, committed to your brand of liberalfreedom, can you? committed to your brand of

liberal freedom, can you? liberalfreedom, can you? here is the way _ liberalfreedom, can you? here is the way that _ liberalfreedom, can you? here is the way that i _ liberalfreedom, can you? here is the way that i look _ liberalfreedom, can you? here is the way that i look at - liberalfreedom, can you? here is the way that i look at the - is the way that i look at the viktor 0rban ministration and the way i look at my role. when i was in hungary i had total freedom to talk about and do about, do anything i want, when i was there, my first day, excuse me my first interview there, i was told, when i was told you can talk about anything you want, he said i am anything you want, he said i am an atheist, he said even atheism you can go around and talk about atheism. in my experience, yes, i got to talk about my passions, i would do it again, that does not mean i am a supporter of his government, means i was, i was in a country that i spoke about things, about my passions, socratic method and having impossible conversations and i would do it again stop sadly,. sadly we are almost out of time. whether it is the us or hungary what we see with societies and increasing

inability off a different political extremes to talk to each other, to connect and communicate effectively. you have spent a lot of time as a philosopher trying to understand help book and better do that. do you believe you have found a way that people can bridge those huge golfs, and can avoid the sorts of clashes which we now define as a deepening culture war? i clashes which we now define as a deepening culture war?- a deepening culture war? i do. go around _ a deepening culture war? i do. go around the _ a deepening culture war? i do. go around the world _ a deepening culture war? i do. go around the world and - a deepening culture war? i do. go around the world and we i a deepening culture war? i do. j go around the world and we do something called spectrum epistemology i coined my first out have civil conversations we put lines of tape on the sidewalk and go around the world and do that and asked people if they —— they believe they have corresponds to the evidence, their confidence in the evidence. for example it is strongly disagreed slightly disagree neutral and on the other side we will ask the question, should trans women women be in women's sport and they start on the neutral and go to a line and then i ask them questions, using the socratic method, i did not

discover this it has been around for 21t00 years, i have augmented it. around for 2400 years, i have augmented it.— augmented it. this is the last one, augmented it. this is the last one. from — augmented it. this is the last one, from what _ augmented it. this is the last one, from what you - augmented it. this is the last one, from what you see - augmented it. this is the last one, from what you see you i augmented it. this is the last - one, from what you see you have faith we human beings in the end will tend towards finding common ground, rather than fighting each other, or not? i do not have faith in that i have confidence we have the tools to enable to —— people to live more sane and rational lives but they have to wanted. peter boghossian, it has been a pleasure having you on hard to talk. —— pleasure having you on hard to talk. -- hardtalk. pleasure having you on hard to talk. —— hardtalk. thank you very much indeed. abs, talk. -- hardtalk. thank you very much indeed. hello. 0ur fairly unsettled spell ofjuly weather is set to continue through

the remainder of the week, really, and we're going to be seeing temperatures gradually on the rise over the next few days. but through thursday, some sunshine in the forecast, particularly so towards the east, but also a bit of rain, mainly across the north—west of the uk, down to the fact that we've got this area of low pressure approaching from the atlantic, whereas high pressure across the continent is dominating things further south and east. so for thursday, fairly fresh start to the day. the best of the sunshine will be for eastern scotland, eastern and southern parts of england and into wales, but cumulus cloud builds through the day and that willjust bring the odd shower, mainly in the north and the west of the british isles. more persistent rain arrives across northern ireland during the afternoon. it'll be windy here, with gusts about 40 mph, and temperatures 15 to 22 degrees. don't think we'll see any interruptions at wimbledon today due to the weather, but just a very small chance of a shower in the afternoon as that cloud builds. next few days at wimbledon, hot and humid on friday, thunderstorms and showers possible for saturday and for sunday. now back to thursday, in the afternoon and the evening, that area of rain drifts out of northern ireland

across parts of scotland, becoming fairly light and patchy overnight, but across england and wales, quite a warm, humid night. temperatures certainly remaining in double figures overnight. so not quite as fresh, compared to wednesday night. but what we're going to see on friday as this area of low pressure, this frontal system drifts its way northwards, it'll open the doors for this warm and moist flow coming in from the south. so a hot, humid—feeling day for some of us on friday, especially so across england and wales. a bit more cloud and showery rain at times for scotland and northern ireland, with a bit of a breeze blowing, too, but for the warmest spots, we're likely to see 28 or 29 degrees on friday, typically the low—20s, further north. now heading on into the weekend, we've got that warm, moist, humid air with us, and then low pressure again moving in from the atlantic, so the combination of those two things means we could see some very lively weather on saturday. some thunderstorms possible almost anywhere where you see these heavy showers and that hot, humid air. fresher airjust returning from the west, later

in the day. a bit of uncertainty about the timing, location of some of those showers, still quite warm ahead of them, with temperatures again in the mid—20s. so a brief spell of heat, i think, friday into saturday, but some thunderstorms through the weekend and they're going to continue the unsettled trend into next week. bye— bye.

this is bbc news.

live from london, the uk financial watchdog meets with bank bosses today after raising concerns over interest rates on savings accounts not increasing fast enough. and a special report on gannets, a wonderful species which has seen its colonies decimated by bird flu.