we get up to 5096 that after 30 years we get up to 50% recovery~ _ that after 30 years we get up to 50% recove . t, that after 30 years we get up to 50% recove . a, a, , a, , that after 30 years we get up to 50% recove . a, a, , t,, n that after 30 years we get up to 50% recove. a, a, , ,, recovery. i have to stop you because tom is laughing _ recovery. i have to stop you because tom is laughing his _ recovery. i have to stop you because tom is laughing his head _ recovery. i have to stop you because tom is laughing his head off. - recovery. i have to stop you because tom is laughing his head off. why? | tom is laughing his head off. why? it is more classic human greed. i would take the idea of mining deep but i pay they probably don't. it is lovely that there are scientists studying... we know the impacts, its massive ecological trauma. that's why so many companies don't want it. but there is massive ecological threat, some of the islands in the pacific, and the metal companies have done deals with three places most at risk from climate change in

the world. and by the way, these three islands are not responsible for any omissions, pretty much. to earn money from the companies and help the climate?— help the climate? by rolling out a hue help the climate? by rolling out a hu . e fleet help the climate? by rolling out a huge fleet of _ help the climate? by rolling out a huge fleet of electric _ help the climate? by rolling out a huge fleet of electric cars - help the climate? by rolling out a huge fleet of electric cars we - help the climate? by rolling out a huge fleet of electric cars we are | huge fleet of electric cars we are not going to stop the hell in a hand cart drive towards climate change that we are on. it might make a difference. that we are on. it might make a difference-— difference. you're ignoring my question- _ difference. you're ignoring my question. what _ difference. you're ignoring my question. what about - difference. you're ignoring my question. what about those i difference. you're ignoring my- question. what about those islands? those islands are going to suffer regardless of the mining because of everything that's going on a side effect. , ., ., , ., everything that's going on a side effect. , ., ., , ., effect. gerard, do you accept that? i think that's _ effect. gerard, do you accept that? i think that's nonsense. _ effect. gerard, do you accept that? i think that's nonsense. yes, - effect. gerard, do you accept that? i think that's nonsense. yes, they i i think that's nonsense. yes, they will suffer— i think that's nonsense. yes, they will suffer but we need to address climate _ will suffer but we need to address climate change. i would ask tom to ask about _ climate change. i would ask tom to ask about where metals are coming from now. — ask about where metals are coming from now, what about the indigenous communities being pushed out by terrestrial — communities being pushed out by terrestrial mining? we live in an

integrated — terrestrial mining? we live in an integrated planet where the oceans and land. _ integrated planet where the oceans and land, we are one planet. we have to look_ and land, we are one planet. we have to look where — and land, we are one planet. we have to look where we can get these metals — to look where we can get these metals with the lightest planetary and human touch and that's where we need to— and human touch and that's where we need to go— and human touch and that's where we need to go because when we put these metals _ need to go because when we put these metals into— need to go because when we put these metals into the system, we can recycle — metals into the system, we can recycle them in the future but the notion— recycle them in the future but the notion we — recycle them in the future but the notion we can recycle our way to a decarhonise — notion we can recycle our way to a decarbonise the economy is total nonsense. — decarbonise the economy is total nonsense, we can't do that. thank ou. nonsense, we can't do that. thank you- much — nonsense, we can't do that. thank you- much more — nonsense, we can't do that. thank you. much more to _ nonsense, we can't do that. thank you. much more to come - nonsense, we can't do that. thank you. much more to come on - nonsense, we can't do that. thank you. much more to come on this. | in italy, dozens of parents in same—sex families have been told one parent should be removed from their child's birth certificate. couples in cities like milan and padua have been told that the name of the non—biological parent should be removed from the document, drastically restricting their rights. the italian government, which is led by the far—right prime minister giorgia meloni, has repeatedly expressed concerns about lgbt couples raising children together. one of her government's coalition allies has told this programme that same—sex parent's rights are not being erased. anna has the story.

irana and laura share two children. each gave birth to one. according to italian law, same—sex couples don't have a right to adopt but the couple's local mayor allowed them to be recognised as both of their children's legal parents. that is until three weeks ago when the couple received letters like this which, translated into english, state only the biological mother has a right to be mentioned in the birth certificate. it says the so—called social mother should be removed, meaning they would only legally have the same rights as a stranger. for me, it was like they said we want to erase you as a parent. i'm still struggling with sleeping at night because of course when you read that you are no longer the mother of your child, of your daughter, of your son or whatever... terrible.

while same—sex civil unions were granted in 2016, last autumn italy voted for a party whose leader has in the past questioned the lgbt community's right to parent. translation: this is their game. they want us to be parent one, parent two, lgbt gender, citizen x, codes. but we are not codes. we are people and we will defend our identity. injanuary prime minister georgia meloni's government ordered all mayors to stop automatically registering the birth of children born to same—sex families. following the intervention by officials in rome, same—sex parents living in several northern cities have recently received letters like irene. depending on how the public responds, lawyers predict this practice will become more widespread. but the leader of the noi con l�*italia party,

which is in coalition with georgia meloni, argues rights are not being eroded and it's down to national parliament to make the law. translation: there is no removal of identity. - there is simply the enforcement of a law which has its reason for being. and as such, courts and mayors must respect the law which is active in italy, unless parliament modifies it. the only thing that doesn't get recognised is the fact that if there are two mums or dads, the parent is the one whose paternity or maternity is recognised. the second individual at this moment doesn't exist from a legal standpoint. so how does irena respond? what would you say to those who say there is no law in italy for same—sex parents to appear on a birth certificate? it doesn't matter whether there is one mother, one father.

we need all to learn how to be good parents and definitely nowadays there is a huge need of good mothers and good fathers. i don't think that's related to the sex of the parents. irena's family will now appear in court in november to argue for a special adoption case. it's expected to be a costly and lengthy process. "to some it feels like we live in a rip off economy." that's what the ex—head of the the competition and markets authority, conservative peer lord tyrie, told the financial times earlier this year. and many will find it hard to disagree. millions are wondering how to pay extra mortgage costs, on top of high food, energy and water bills. and this week no less than three uk regulators of supermarkets, water companies and the banks said these sectors aren't doing enough to protect consumers. which begs the question why didn't

the regulators step in to make them? they have a statutory responsibility to, after all. in a moment we'll talk to a former regulator. but first, here's ben. what is "greedflation"? in a nutshell, it's the theory that our high and sticky rates of inflation are due primarily to profiteering by companies. now, the evidence for that being the case on an economy—wide level in the uk is questionable. yet there is evidence increasingly coming in of what one might reasonably call profiteering in certain high—profile sectors of our economy. take petrol and diesel prices. the competition and markets authority said on monday that uk supermarkets did push up their profit margins on fuel sharply last year to, as you can see here, above i2%, something which, it says, led to drivers paying an extra 6p per litre than they should have. take high street banks. this red line shows the profit margin of banks, basically the difference between the rate at which they lend to mortgage

customers and the rate at which they borrow from ordinary depositors. it's gone up sharply in recent months to 3% — although, as you can see, you could argue it's been depressed in recent years and has simply reverted to the historically normal rate. yet leaving that debate aside, the banks' regulator, the financial conduct authority which is led by nikhil rathi, did say yesterday that they are not passing on higher interest rates to savers rapidly enough. take privatised water companies. the boss of the water regular, ofwat, david black conceded this week that these companies' owners were allowed to extract excessive dividends in the past. and there's now the real possibility of a taxpayer bailout being necessary for at least one of them, thames water. and consumer water bills are going up. what unites all these examples is not only a strong sense of unfairness but also, given this is happening, the question of whether regulation is adequate and whether competition is strong enough to protect

the interests of households? take the example of the supermarkets. it's striking that the competition and markets authority said that after asda and morrisons had hiked their fuel prices, the other supermarkets, such as tesco and sainsbury�*s "did not respond in the way you would expect in a competitive market and instead raised their prices in line with these changes." some experts have argued for some time that the competition authorities have been stuck in a somewhat economically naive and outdated view on what they need to do to make sure markets deliverfor consumers. this view, they say, is based on the belief that an absence of direct proof of collusion on price setting between firms is sufficient. the belief that the market share of a particular firm is the key metric. the intellectual revolution was slightly sinister in the way. it

came from a world run by an economics movement which invited regulators to focus on a rather narrow set of consumer welfare, doing rather detailed economic modelling of what might happen to prices as far as consumers were concerned. and certainly the effect, and i am inclined to believe the intention of all of that, was to emasculate anti—competition policy and that is what happened in the us, which undermined it somewhat in the uk. we need a new intellectual framework. and for the sectors like water and rail, in which there can be no effective competition, are regulators inevitably going to struggle to prevent abuses? in the case of quite a lot of the privatisations of the 805 we actually managed to create competitive market5 actually managed to create competitive markets to some degree in other utilities in areas like

british airways, we got a competitive outcome. in water it is inescapably a monopoly. we regulated it relatively well in the early years, we have not been doing very well at it since. so, if this is right, if, what we need is more than political pressure on firms and regulators and competition authorities. it's about a whole new way of regulating 215t century capitalism to ensure market5 work in the interests of consumers and households. let'5 5peak now to a woman who's previously worked for three regulators, ofgem, the financial conduct authority and the competition and markets authority, mary stark5, and to economist and author france5 coppola who has written critically about the power of large corporations. mary stark5, let me start with you. the former chair, a man who believes in the free market, lord tyra, 5ay5

in the free market, lord tyra, says it feels like we live in a rip of economy and the regulators have essentially been captured by the companies they are supposed to regulate. in other words, they pretty much will do what the company is one. do pretty much will do what the company is one. ,, . ., �* pretty much will do what the company is one. i. ., ., �* ., is one. do you agree? i don't agree with that. is one. do you agree? i don't agree with that- l— is one. do you agree? i don't agree with that. i do — is one. do you agree? i don't agree with that. i do have _ is one. do you agree? i don't agree with that. i do have some - is one. do you agree? i don't agree| with that. i do have some sympathy with that. i do have some sympathy with lord tyraargues that the regulators need to address the things they need to do day in, day out. they need to do a betterjob of explaining what they do, but it is not true to say that they are fully captured by the companies. explain to --eole captured by the companies. explain to peeple how _ captured by the companies. explain to people how come _ captured by the companies. explain to people how come they _ captured by the companies. explain to people how come they don't - captured by the companies. explain to people how come they don't do i to people how come they don't do more? if they are allowed to, if it is set by parliament, why aren't they doing it?— is set by parliament, why aren't they doing it? something is going wront. they doing it? something is going wrong- they _ they doing it? something is going wrong- they are _ they doing it? something is going wrong. they are doing _ they doing it? something is going wrong. they are doing plenty. - they doing it? something is going| wrong. they are doing plenty. the other day they were looking at grocery prices, fuel pricing and ofgem looking at prices in household and all these regulators are putting and all these regulators are putting a lot of scrutiny on the companies in question to really try and understand what is going on in the

market and making sure that nothing is going amiss. but this is where i disagree with the introduction to this piece, i would not say that profiteering is the primary driver of high prices in the economy at all. there are real deep inflationary pressures and costs are going up and it is a job to work out how much of that is just inescapable cost pressures and how much of that is there may some opportunistic profiteering going on. the regulators have got to do the work to work out what is going on and they are doing that work. frances co ola, they are doing that work. frances coupola. what — they are doing that work. frances coppola, what would _ they are doing that work. frances coppola, what would do - they are doing that work. frances coppola, what would do instead? | they are doing that work. frances | coppola, what would do instead? i think we need to look at these specific— think we need to look at these specific sectors in which it is happening, so the three that ben highlighted in his talk. they are water, — highlighted in his talk. they are water, banks and they were areas where _ water, banks and they were areas where it_ water, banks and they were areas where it is— water, banks and they were areas where it is actually where we have problems — where it is actually where we have problems with competition. the water companies are effectively within the regions _ companies are effectively within the regions monopolies and they are

providing — regions monopolies and they are providing an essential service. banks. — providing an essential service. banks. we _ providing an essential service. banks, we have discussed over the last ten— banks, we have discussed over the last ten years and more ways of improving — last ten years and more ways of improving competition within the banking — improving competition within the banking sector and it is still extremely concentrated. banks are setting _ extremely concentrated. banks are setting prices pretty much as i heard — setting prices pretty much as i heard. �* setting prices pretty much as i heard. . , setting prices pretty much as i heard. . . , ., setting prices pretty much as i heard. . , heard. and customers are sticking with them- _ heard. and customers are sticking with them- if— heard. and customers are sticking with them. if customers _ heard. and customers are sticking with them. if customers do - heard. and customers are sticking with them. if customers do that, i with them. if customers do that, then you can't blame the banks. it is hard to see where customers go. we don't _ is hard to see where customers go. we don't have an equivalent of what they have _ we don't have an equivalent of what they have in america where there are a nroney— they have in america where there are a money market funds where customers can go _ a money market funds where customers can go but_ a money market funds where customers can to. �* ., a money market funds where customers can to. �* . ., a money market funds where customers canto. �* ., ., . ., can go. but we have got challenger banks, can go. but we have got challenger banks. new — can go. but we have got challenger banks, new banks _ can go. but we have got challenger banks, new banks coming - can go. but we have got challenger banks, new banks coming into - can go. but we have got challenger banks, new banks coming into the | banks, new banks coming into the market, and one argument is if you over regulate, regulate too much, then you wipe out those new firms coming in. i then you wipe out those new firms comint in. ~ ., ., ., ., ~' coming in. i think we have to look at the level— coming in. i think we have to look at the level of— coming in. i think we have to look at the level of competition - coming in. i think we have to look at the level of competition in - coming in. i think we have to look at the level of competition in the | at the level of competition in the british— at the level of competition in the british banking sector because to me it looks _ british banking sector because to me it looks like — british banking sector because to me it looks like there is just too much homogeneity in the saving rates being _ homogeneity in the saving rates being offered an unwillingness on the part— being offered an unwillingness on the part of banks generally to increase — the part of banks generally to increase savings rates at the same pace _ increase savings rates at the same pace they— increase savings rates at the same pace they are raising borrowing rates —

pace they are raising borrowing rates. a , pace they are raising borrowing rates. , ,, ., ., rates. mary starks, would you defend the wa the rates. mary starks, would you defend the way the water _ rates. mary starks, would you defend the way the water companies - rates. mary starks, would you defend the way the water companies have . the way the water companies have been regulated? they have been allowed to borrow billions, much of which has been paid out in dividends to shareholders.— to shareholders. water is not my sector, it to shareholders. water is not my sector. it is _ to shareholders. water is not my sector, it is one _ to shareholders. water is not my sector, it is one of— to shareholders. water is not my sector, it is one of the _ to shareholders. water is not my sector, it is one of the few - to shareholders. water is not my. sector, it is one of the few sectors i haven't worked in. i do think the problems in water are quite deep—seated and they go to the environment that we live in as well. some of the problems we are having with water at the moment are to do with water at the moment are to do with extreme weather patterns and very built—up environment that means far more water is running off into the system than the system was ever designed to cope with. you have got to go back quite a long way to work at where we went wrong on that. i think the important thing in water now is to focus on how we get that right because it is a huge question. it is unfortunately going to be expensive to put right and the focus should be looking towards that

question. should be looking towards that tuestion. ., . . should be looking towards that tuestion. . . , ., , ., should be looking towards that tuestion. . . , ., ., question. frances coppola, lord t rie question. frances coppola, lord tyrie also _ question. frances coppola, lord tyrie also said _ question. frances coppola, lord tyrie also said a _ question. frances coppola, lord tyrie also said a statutory - question. frances coppola, lord i tyrie also said a statutory footing on which regulators were set up should be strengthened to place consumers per interest is paramount in law. at the moment it is a statutory responsibility and he wants to strengthen that, would you agree with that?— agree with that? yes, absolutely, there is insufficient _ agree with that? yes, absolutely, there is insufficient focus - agree with that? yes, absolutely, there is insufficient focus on - agree with that? yes, absolutely, there is insufficient focus on the i there is insufficient focus on the rights _ there is insufficient focus on the rights of— there is insufficient focus on the rights of consumers. you are talking about _ rights of consumers. you are talking about water— rights of consumers. you are talking about water now, but for me the problems— about water now, but for me the problems go back to some policy decisions — problems go back to some policy decisions made in the past about the way in _ decisions made in the past about the way in which these companies were privatised — way in which these companies were privatised. they were privatised as local monopolies and when you have local monopolies and when you have local monopolies and ineffective regulation of the consumer is not being _ regulation of the consumer is not being placed first and that is a recipe — being placed first and that is a recipe for— being placed first and that is a recipe for disaster. do being placed first and that is a recipe for disaster.— being placed first and that is a recipe for disaster. do you think, mary starks. _ recipe for disaster. do you think, mary starks. as _ recipe for disaster. do you think, mary starks, as someone - recipe for disaster. do you think, mary starks, as someone who i recipe for disaster. do you think, | mary starks, as someone who has worked at a number of regulators, that they have been captured as lord tyrie puts it? we see, for example,

a kind of revolving door of people who work at the regulators who end “p who work at the regulators who end up working for the companies they used to regulate. i have got a figure that suggests that 27 former ofwat directors and managers now work for england's water companies. there is a revolving door, i don't think that is a bad thing. if you are a water sector expert, that is your industry. i also think it is healthy that people who work in the pits of government that plays into business get business experience and vice versa. i don't think it is a simple story. what is true is that when you are in a regulator it is very easy to listen to the big companies that you regulate. they come and talk to you and they are very persuasive and well—informed. it is much harder to understand the perspective of customers and challenger businesses and regulators have to make a real effort to make sure they are listening to those other voices. that to me is where the risk comes in.—

other voices. that to me is where the risk comes in. thank you both very much- _ before we take a look at tomorrow's front pages have a look at today's wall stjournal, marking the 100th day in russian captivity of their journalist, evan gershkovich. as they newspaper says, he has committed no crime, only journalism. as for tomorrow's uk front pages... the front page of the sun newspaper, we will show it in a minute, i hope. it is coming. top bbc star in sets pics probe. present are now off air. the front page of the daily telegraph, the wealthiest should pay more for the bbc. the guardian, eggs or dairy found in a third of vegan products. that's all from us tonight. i'm back on monday. have a lovely weekend.

this is bbc news. he is in the prison, an infamous one, kgb... isolated for much of the time, he has access to books, we understand he is working out. he has only had two visits from the american embassy in 100 days, which is pretty diabolical. really a contravention of international laws. his parents have been out to see him

for a couple of court appearances and had a couple of brief exchanges with him, which has been heart—warming and heartbreaking in equal measure. haste heart-warming and heartbreaking in equal measure-— heart-warming and heartbreaking in equal measure. we mentioned in the lead in, equal measure. we mentioned in the lead in. white _ equal measure. we mentioned in the lead in, white house _ equal measure. we mentioned in the lead in, white house adviser- equal measure. we mentioned in the lead in, white house adviserjake - lead in, white house adviserjake sullivan was asked about him today and he said, the us has been in contact with russian officials to press for his release. we know a lot is happening behind—the—scenes, but what can you tell us about negotiations to try to get him home? as you noted, the russians are saying talks were under way. the us says it hasn't had contact. national security adviser sullivan was pretty firm today in saying he didn't want to provide for us hope and that those talks haven't led to clear resolutions on how to get him back. —— didn't want to provide force hope. we would encourage any interaction that might bring him home.

inaudible. we understand he was working on a story about yevgeny prigozhin, who as we know then led an armed mutiny against the russian defence ministry. what do we know about the timing of his arrest and what he was researching at the time? he timing of his arrest and what he was researching at the time?— researching at the time? he was re ttortin researching at the time? he was reporting for _ researching at the time? he was reporting for the _ researching at the time? he was reporting for the washington - reporting for the washington journal. the russians know that, he was an accredited journalist there. he had made a speciality of reporting on the russian economy. he was doing very good journalism for us and for the world there. we feel this is really a business that russia has made of snatching americans, sol russia has made of snatching americans, so i don't read a huge amount into any correlation... what amount into any correlation... what messa . e amount into any correlation... what message do — amount into any correlation... what message do you _ amount into any correlation... what message do you have _ amount into any correlation... what message do you have on _ amount into any correlation... what message do you have on this 100th day of detention, it's important to keep up the tension on the fact he is still being detained? haste keep up the tension on the fact he is still being detained?— is still being detained? we asked eve bod is still being detained? we asked everybody to _ is still being detained? we asked everybody to keep _ is still being detained? we asked everybody to keep him _ is still being detained? we asked everybody to keep him in - is still being detained? we asked everybody to keep him in their. everybody to keep him in their private thoughts. to show their

support on social media. there is a lot going around, the hashtag i stand with evan. you can read his excellentjournalism online and learn about him as a person. in the grander scheme of things, very few countries in the world will have a greater impact on the future of the west than russia, and to be deprived of the excellent information and journalism that evan and his colleagues there provide, it's a dangerous void.— colleagues there provide, it's a dangerous void. paul, one more question- _ dangerous void. paul, one more question. what _ dangerous void. paul, one more question. what can _ dangerous void. paul, one more question. what can you - dangerous void. paul, one more question. what can you tell- dangerous void. paul, one more question. what can you tell us l dangerous void. paul, one more - question. what can you tell us about evan, for those who don't know him personally? he evan, for those who don't know him personally?— personally? he is 31, he is part of a generation _ personally? he is 31, he is part of a generation of— personally? he is 31, he is part of a generation of young _ personally? he is 31, he is part of a generation of young and - personally? he is 31, he is part of a generation of young and brave, | a generation of young and brave, really competent journalists who dedicate their career to russia. he is from the us, newjersey. he was born here, he has a fascinating

family history, his parents were sovietjewish emigrants to the us in the 19705, fleeing persecution to come to the us. with his russian heritage in mind, he became fascinated about the country and eager to go back. well, we can see where this part of the story has brought us. but one day he will come back to the newsroom and he will continue his stellar career.- continue his stellar career. paul, thank you _ continue his stellar career. paul, thank you so _ continue his stellar career. paul, thank you so much _ continue his stellar career. paul, thank you so much for— continue his stellar career. paul, thank you so much for speaking i continue his stellar career. paul, thank you so much for speaking to us, and because we all hope for the speedy of evan. thanks forjoining us. there have been allegations in the last hour on a bbc news presenter. yes, a bbc presenter has been

accused of serious misconduct with an individual that began when the teenager was 17, according to the sun in the uk. the newspaper says the presenter, who hasn't been named, paid the teenager tens of thousands of pounds for sexually explicit images. we understand the bbc is looking into the allegations, which are clearly very serious. the sun claims the well—known presenter paid more than £35,000 in return for those sexually explicit images. the individual�*s family, it is reported, complained to the bbc on may 19th this year and begged them to make the man stopped sending the cash, because the mother claims her child, now 20, had gone from a happy—go—lucky youngster to a ghostlike crack addict in three years because it is claimed the money is being used to fund a drug habit. the bbc in a statement said, we treat any allegations very

seriously, we have processes in place to deal with them. they also said, as part of that, if we must even be an information that requires further investigation, we will take steps to do this, including actively attempting to speak to those who have contacted us to seek further detail and understanding of the situation. the sun has reported that the male presenter has been taken off air and we understand he is not scheduled to appear in the coming days. scheduled to appear in the coming da s. ., ~ scheduled to appear in the coming da s. . ,, , ., scheduled to appear in the coming da s. ., ~' , ., , scheduled to appear in the coming das. .~g , . scheduled to appear in the coming das. ., , . ., scheduled to appear in the coming das. .~g , . ., ., days. thank you very much for that in our bbc — days. thank you very much for that in our bbc newsroom. _ days. thank you very much for that in our bbc newsroom. thank- days. thank you very much for that in our bbc newsroom. thank you i days. thank you very much for that i in our bbc newsroom. thank you for watching bbc news, we will be back at the top of the hour with an update on all of our headlines. i am sumi somaskanda in washington, stay with us.

we closed the working week on a hot and increasingly humid story. many areas across the country seeing temperatures in the mid—to—high 205, peaking in the southeast with 30 degrees. that means temperature not falling very far at all, so the start of saturday morning is going to be quite uncomfortable, quite muqqyt to be quite uncomfortable, quite muggy, temperatures in london at around 20 already, 68 fahrenheit. with that humidity, unfortunately with this weather front pushing in from the south—west, could see sharp thundery downpours through the start of the weekend. dry and settled and sunny start to many, but this weather front, sunny start to many, but this weatherfront, the brighter colours weather front, the brighter colours denote weatherfront, the brighter colours denote the intensity of the rain, hail not out of the question. it sweeps quickly north and east, so behind it, some sunshine, in actual fact across east anglia we could see temperatures into the high 205.

still some showers quite torrential, large hail not out of the question, and certainly the potential for large hail not out of the question, and certainly the potentialfor a lot of rain in a short space of time. into scotland, temperatures into the mid 205. the rain not arriving in the far north and east of scotland until the end of the afternoon. into sunday, still under the influence of low pressure. a bit more breeze driving on the potential for some showers through the day. the second half of the weekend, some rain easing slowly away from the north—east of scotland, potentially sharp thundery rain moving up through the near continent across east anglia and south—east england. we will keep a close eye on that, still some uncertainty in the forecast. top temperatures 17—23 as the overall height. as we close out the overall height. as we close out the weekend into next week, low pressure never far away. it looks likely as we see the areas of low pressure moving eastwards, we lose the south—westerly flow and dragged in more of a north—westerly. the

week ahead looks quite unsettled at times. still some sunny spells, but temperatures have the potential to just be a little disappointing. next week, a little bit tricky. it looks likely to be fresher, with sunny spells, but still the risk of sharp blustery showers.