with a warm and humid night with temperatures of 17 or 18 but otherwise a relatively fresh field with 13 or 1a quite widely. tomorrow we start with a band of rain across the south. some of the showers could be lengthy across wales and the midlands with thunderstorms. lengthy downpours across western scotland and the central lowlands. temperature is below average for the time of year but where the sunshine is out it will not feel too bad. most of the day will be dry at wimbledon but we can't rule out the odd passing shower. looking at the big jet stream passing across the north atlantic, at the moment we have a kind of shape that we call an old meagre block. —— omega block. we are in the trough portion of it, meaning we get low pressure after low pressure forming. even as we say goodbye to one area another one will

ping up goodbye to one area another one will ping up out of nowhere to move back across the uk. it is that repeating pattern we will see over the next few days and it's exactly why the weather is this damage was all so preventable. this programme continues on bbc one. for sexually explicit pictures. tonight, lawyers for the individual say the claims in the newspaper are "rubbish". the bbc has been on the back foot for days, the sun is standing by its story, the high profile star remains unamed officially, and we don't know how the young person at the heart of this story is. where does all this leave

the corporation and its bosses — a question we have asked before in recent months and years, surely they have learned from previous scandals? tonight we'll talk to alison hastings, former chair of the bbc�*s editorial standards committee who's dealt with a number of bbc scandals, and top agentjonathan shallit. also tonight, as temperature records are broken around the world, we'll ask if climate change means this summer's hot weather is the new normal. and ahead of the nato summit starting tomorrow, mark urban's here with his take. nato�*s been promising ukraine membership for the past 15 years, but president biden says the time's still not right. and in west africa, one of the world s leading anti—slavery organisations is accused of wrongly taking children from their homes as part of a human trafficking crackdown. bbc africa eye has an exclusive investigation.

translation: they just came translation: theyjust came in and translation: they “ust came in and . rabbed translation: they “ust came in and grabbed me. _ translation: they “ust came in and grabbed me. one — translation: they 'ust came in and grabbed me. one of— translation: theyjust came in and grabbed me. one of the _ translation: theyjust came in and grabbed me. one of the men - translation: theyjust came in and grabbed me. one of the men held . translation: theyjust came in and grabbed me. one of the men held a i grabbed me. one of the men held a gun to my grandma's throat, so i was terrified and i started to cry. i thought they were taking as a way to kill us. we didn't know where they were taking us. good evening. you don't need me to tell you there's an awful lot going on in the world, so why does the scandal around the famous bbc presenter — still offically unnamed and 2a hours into his suspension — matter? quite simply it's about trust — your trust — in the bbc, funded by you through your licence fee. trust in its high profile names, some of whom have been forced to deny they are the presenter in question. and it's also about the truth. and i'll be honest with you, we don't know if the claims from the mother of the young person — who accused the famous name of paying thousands of pounds to her child in exchange for sexual photos — are true.

because we, journalists who work at the bbc, haven't seen any of the evidence the sun says it has. and we don't know if the new claims tonight from lawyers representing the young individual — rubbishing what the mum has said — are true either. bbc news doesn't know the identity of that person and hasn't spoken directly to them. we do know the bbc is in the middle of another crisis, and big qustions are being asked — again — about who knew what when, and why the corporation is on the back foot. what has it learned from previous crises? here's sima. for bbc�*s the national broadcaster, funded by the licence fee, and among its public service mission is is to tell you what's happening in the world. but in recent months, it's the bbc that's made the headlines. now it finds itself again in the spotlight. it's been facing allegations that one of its presenters allegedly paid

a teenager for sexually explicit photos after a report in the sun newspaper last week. but now a letter from the lawyers representing the young person was sent to the bbc this afternoon saying nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between them and the presenter, and that the allegations are what they call "rubbish". the letter from the legal firm states: the sun told the bbc:

the sun's statement raises questions as to why it didn't report the young person's denial, as stated in the letter. so, how did this story come to light? on the 19th of may, the young person's family complained to the bbc. onjuly 7th, the sun published a front cover story, alleging the presenter paid a teenager for explicit pictures. onjuly 9th, the bbc suspended the presenter. a day later, the bbc met the police to discuss the matter. this afternoon, the met police said, they are assessing the information discussed and further inquiries are taking place to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed. there is no investigation at this time. the most awkward question

for the bbc is what action, if any, was taken following the 19th of may complaint? newsnight has asked the press office this, but had no response to this specific question. the director—general, tim davie, said new allegations of a different nature were first put to the bbc only on thursday. one former bbc boss told newsnight: well, the last 72 hours have been incredibly bruising for the bbc, and now it finds itself with a legal letter that says something different to what the sun has been reporting

over the last few days. the letter also says, "it is concerning that nobody from the bbc has tried to contact our client prior to our writing to you," raising questions about whether attempts had been made to contact the person when the complaint first came in back in may. in a statement, the organisation said it is working as quickly as possible to establish the facts in order to properly inform appropriate next steps. anger, shock, confusion — just some of the emotions generated by these events that have dominated the news agenda. and even if the allegations were proven to be untrue, some will be asking, how hard did the bbc tried to contact the young person after the initial contact from their mother? the bbc�*s sternest critics are likely to see this as further evidence of an organisation with inadequate processes.

what is the sun reporting tonight? they have been reading on this story for the last several days. on the front page tomorrow, it is reading on the story again. the headline says, "bbc are liars. family of youngster paid by abc staffer sex pictures says a corporation ignored bombshell testimony given seven weeks ago." is the step that has said that he told bbc bosses they had screenshots of contact between their child and the start. i quote, he said, "we put the allegations to them for an hour." this evening, i understand it is not clear whether those screenshots were shared with the bbc and whether the two parties did speak for that length of time. the article also says, this is very crucial, "i told the bbc i had gone to the police in desperation, but they couldn't do anything as they said it wasn't illegal." that is

from the stepdad. we have got the police are investigating whether anything illegal happened. although they haven't lodged a criminal investigation. we have got the person saying nothing unlawful has happened, and we have got the stepdad saying that he went to the police and was told there was nothing illegal. so, tonight many of us are trying to figure out still what happened, and we are also trying to figure out whether it warrants the naming of the presenter. warrants the naming of the presenter-— warrants the naming of the resenter. ., ~ , ., , . here to discuss this we have alison hastings, former chair of the bbc trust editorial standards committee — she dealt with the savile inquiry and before that thejonathan ross/ russell brand scandal. and professorjonathan shalit, chairman and founder of the intertalent rights group, who has represents presenters such as susanna reid and andrew neil. welcome both of you. alison hastings, first of all, should the bbc have acted sooner? i am bbc have acted sooner? i am absolutely — bbc have acted sooner? i am absolutely sure _ bbc have acted sooner? i am absolutely sure the _ bbc have acted sooner? i am absolutely sure the bbc- bbc have acted sooner? i:n absolutely sure the bbc wishes that it had gone to the bottom of the

allegations before the mother chose to speak to a newspaper. in those seven weeks, that would have meant that they had an opportunity to understand more about what was going on and potentially then stay in control of the situation. that, as we can clearly see from the last few days, that situation... that ship has sailed and they are now any reactive crisis mode. that is not a happy place for any organisation to be. �* ., . . happy place for any organisation to be. , ., ., ., ,, happy place for any organisation to be. jonathan, the sun is reporting, i can't confirm _ be. jonathan, the sun is reporting, i can't confirm this, _ be. jonathan, the sun is reporting, i can't confirm this, we _ be. jonathan, the sun is reporting, i can't confirm this, we can't - i can't confirm this, we can't confirm this, according to the stepdad, one hour was spent with the bbc showing screenshots and so on. are there any credible reasons why attempts to get in touch with the family don't seem to have been satisfied? ., , ., , ., satisfied? you began this whole programme _ satisfied? you began this whole programme tonight _ satisfied? you began this whole programme tonight by - satisfied? you began this whole programme tonight by talking i satisfied? you began this whole - programme tonight by talking about the truth _ programme tonight by talking about the truth. the truth is, we don't know_ the truth. the truth is, we don't know the — the truth. the truth is, we don't know the truth. that is why i think the bbc_ know the truth. that is why i think the bbc are — know the truth. that is why i think the bbc are correct not to make public— the bbc are correct not to make public statements yet. until the bbc

know the _ public statements yet. until the bbc know the truth, it is wrong of them to say— know the truth, it is wrong of them to say things and pre—empt what might— to say things and pre—empt what might not— to say things and pre—empt what might not be the truth. we have a situation — might not be the truth. we have a situation where a mother and stepfather, concerned parents understandably, a 20—year—old, but albeit— understandably, a 20—year—old, but albeit a _ understandably, a 20—year—old, but albeit a child, also an adult, they are seen— albeit a child, also an adult, they are seen back of my mum and dad, it is my— are seen back of my mum and dad, it is my business. instructing a major law firm _ is my business. instructing a major law firm to — is my business. instructing a major law firm to write and say that their parents _ law firm to write and say that their parents are wrong. the whole thing is a mess — parents are wrong. the whole thing is a mess it — parents are wrong. the whole thing is a mess. it is not the bbc who created — is a mess. it is not the bbc who created the _ is a mess. it is not the bbc who created the mess, it is a mess because — created the mess, it is a mess because of— created the mess, it is a mess because of bigger circumstances. i guess, _ because of bigger circumstances. i guess, brilliantjournalism by the sun for— guess, brilliantjournalism by the sun for having such great stories to run for— sun for having such great stories to run for four— sun for having such great stories to run for four or five days. it is a media — run for four or five days. it is a media circus _ run for four or five days. it is a media circus that many people are ehicwing, — media circus that many people are enjoying, there is much discussion. but at _ enjoying, there is much discussion. but at the — enjoying, there is much discussion. but at the centre are a number of people _ but at the centre are a number of people whose lives could be destroyed forever. i really think there _ destroyed forever. i really think there has— destroyed forever. i really think there has to be, that is being, very serious _ there has to be, that is being, very serious consideration as to how this progresses — serious consideration as to how this progresses and who is named, if they are named. _ progresses and who is named, if they are named, when. the progresses and who is named, if they are named, when.— are named, when. the young person has said what _

are named, when. the young person has said what their _ are named, when. the young person has said what their mother _ are named, when. the young person has said what their mother told the | has said what their mother told the sun is rubbish. how serious is this for the organisation and senior bosses? i for the organisation and senior bosses? ~ , , for the organisation and senior bosses? ~' , , ., ~ bosses? i think it depends who knew what and when. _ bosses? i think it depends who knew what and when, and _ bosses? i think it depends who knew what and when, and how— bosses? i think it depends who knew what and when, and how they then l what and when, and how they then acted. i understand that the director—general is saying that he did not know anything until thursday. that is presumably when the sun would have gone to the bbc prepublication for comment. there are lots of complaints made about bbc staff, unfortunately, and very few of them actually come to any kind of fruition, so i personally would not have expected the director—general to be on top of that original complaint. but on the face of it, you would think that there were enough red flags in that information, without knowing exactly what it was, on the 19th of may to have escalated this up the chain of command, to prevent the situation that we are in now, which is everything having to be done on the

hoof with a huge amount of public disquiet about it. haifa hoof with a huge amount of public disquiet about it.— hoof with a huge amount of public disquiet about it. how could it have been handled _ disquiet about it. how could it have been handled better? _ disquiet about it. how could it have been handled better? what - disquiet about it. how could it have been handled better? what would. disquiet about it. how could it have i been handled better? what would you have done? �* . . been handled better? what would you have done? �* ., . ., ~ ., have done? again, tricky to know exactly what _ have done? again, tricky to know exactly what was _ have done? again, tricky to know exactly what was in _ have done? again, tricky to know exactly what was in that - have done? again, tricky to know exactly what was in that original. exactly what was in that original complaint, but the fact that the mother, her perception was that it was not being handled, and that led her to go to a national newspaper six, seven weeks later. i think that means that when the bbc look back and see the license that can be learned, that will be the critical timetable as to why they didn't, on the face of it, get a grip of this situation much earlier. jonathan shallit, you _ situation much earlier. jonathan shallit, you represent _ situation much earlier. jonathan shallit, you represent big - situation much earlier. jonathan i shallit, you represent big names, was the bbc right to suspend the presenter on sunday? absolutely correct to suspend _ presenter on sunday? absolutely correct to suspend the _ presenter on sunday? absolutely correct to suspend the presenter| presenter on sunday? absolutely i correct to suspend the presenter on sunday. _ correct to suspend the presenter on sunday, and correct not to name the presenter— sunday, and correct not to name the presenter yet. sunday, and correct not to name the presenter yet-— presenter yet. that is interesting. also, that led _ presenter yet. that is interesting. also, that led to _ presenter yet. that is interesting. also, that led to other _ presenter yet. that is interesting. also, that led to other big - presenter yet. that is interesting. also, that led to other big names| also, that led to other big names

essentially being forced to deny that they were the presenter. that is completely _ that they were the presenter. that is completely wrong, as well. ujah is completely wrong, as well. u'ah said we should �* is completely wrong, as well. u'ah said we should not i is completely wrong, as well. ii}? said we should not name the presenter. said we should not name the presenter-— said we should not name the resenter. �* , , ., , presenter. because people are being wronal presenter. because people are being wrongly named _ presenter. because people are being wrongly named doesn't _ presenter. because people are being wrongly named doesn't mean - presenter. because people are being wrongly named doesn't mean that i presenter. because people are being. wrongly named doesn't mean that you can turn— wrongly named doesn't mean that you can turn on the correct person and name _ can turn on the correct person and name them — can turn on the correct person and name them to defend the wrongly named _ name them to defend the wrongly named once. it is abhorrent the way that people — named once. it is abhorrent the way that people have been wrongly named. that is— that people have been wrongly named. that is a _ that people have been wrongly named. that is a terrible thing about social— that is a terrible thing about social media now. terrible things can he _ social media now. terrible things can he said — social media now. terrible things can be said on social media, they are continually, and those people, all decent — are continually, and those people, all decent people, have had to suffer— all decent people, have had to suffer over the weekend. that is an example _ suffer over the weekend. that is an example of— suffer over the weekend. that is an example of how this matter has become — example of how this matter has become very apparent to the general public _ become very apparent to the general public. they want answers. the bbc are stuck— public. they want answers. the bbc are stuck because they cannot give answers _ are stuck because they cannot give answers. there are so many different stories _ answers. there are so many different stories going around. alison said about, _ stories going around. alison said about, on— stories going around. alison said about, on the face of it, we don't know— about, on the face of it, we don't know what— about, on the face of it, we don't know what the mother said seven weeks _ know what the mother said seven weeks ago, we don't know how she connected — weeks ago, we don't know how she connected with the sun. she reached out to— connected with the sun. she reached out to the _ connected with the sun. she reached out to the sun, perhaps it wasn't as straightforward as that. then of course — straightforward as that. then of course we — straightforward as that. then of course we have got the child, now an adult, _ course we have got the child, now an adult. saying— course we have got the child, now an

adult, saying very different things. therefore. — adult, saying very different things. therefore, all people can do is wait _ therefore, all people can do is wait i— therefore, all people can do is wait. i think they are unrealistic to expect — wait. i think they are unrealistic to expect the bbc to play to the gallery — to expect the bbc to play to the gallery and give answers immediately. i would say the bbc -ive immediately. i would say the bbc give answers before they know the correct _ give answers before they know the correct truth, they would be irresponsible.— correct truth, they would be irresponsible. correct truth, they would be irresonsible. ~ ., ~' irresponsible. alison, do you think it was the right _ irresponsible. alison, do you think it was the right decision _ irresponsible. alison, do you think it was the right decision to - irresponsible. alison, do you think| it was the right decision to suspend the presenter?— the presenter? i think the bbc will have taken legal _ the presenter? i think the bbc will have taken legal advice _ the presenter? i think the bbc will have taken legal advice on - the presenter? i think the bbc will have taken legal advice on the i have taken legal advice on the situation is that there are issues around duty of care, there are employment law issues, but i think by sunday they just employment law issues, but i think by sunday theyjust did not have any other choice. that goes back to my point that when you start losing control of the situation like this, then you may be making decisions that you might not have done in the light of day. i genuinely don't think that they had any choice. but that does lead to a slew of presenters in the ridiculous and remarkable situation of having to publicly clear their own names as the weekend went on. that is because

there is a gap in this story, there are a lot of gaps, clearly, but one of the gaps is that the presenter has not been named, which i think is right by the bbc. i am sure they are really hoping that the presenter will come out with a statement on their side of the story. until that happens and there is a gap, that gap is filled by wild speculation on social media, which is an edifying, but it is the way we are.— social media, which is an edifying, but it is the way we are. how do you think it will — but it is the way we are. how do you think it will play _ but it is the way we are. how do you think it will play out? _ i think their name will end up being in the public domain, that is a given. how it is done is yet to be determined. they potentially could try and take some control of this themselves. when that name comes out you then just do not know, there could be other allegations to follow. it is not a story that will go away and do one thing that tim davie, who i do think has got a grip of it since this weekend, he will

just have to make sure this investigation is both quick and thorough, which is not always easy, and then transparent about the findings as much as you can possibly do. in a situation like this. jonathan, if you are the agent representing the presenter, what would your advice be? i representing the presenter, what would your advice be?— representing the presenter, what would your advice be? i would advise the presenter — would your advice be? i would advise the presenter to _ would your advice be? i would advise the presenter to come _ would your advice be? i would advise the presenter to come out, _ would your advice be? i would advise the presenter to come out, to i would your advice be? i would advise the presenter to come out, to name | the presenter to come out, to name themselves— the presenter to come out, to name themselves and put context and their perspective. i would suspect is not entirely— perspective. i would suspect is not entirelyjustifiable, what they have done, _ entirelyjustifiable, what they have done, but — entirelyjustifiable, what they have done, but i was at least take control— done, but i was at least take control of— done, but i was at least take control of it. i would say you should — control of it. i would say you should name yourself because the speculation going around is helping no one. _ speculation going around is helping no one, including you. one final thing _ no one, including you. one final thing when _ no one, including you. one final thing when it comes to people, the bbc like _ thing when it comes to people, the bbc like all organisations get hundreds of phone calls are people making _ hundreds of phone calls are people making false allegations against famous — making false allegations against famous people. if the bbc reacted to every— famous people. if the bbc reacted to every allegation made against an employee of the corporation it would be untenable to run it so i also think— be untenable to run it so i also think when— be untenable to run it so i also think when the individual because comes— think when the individual because comes out— think when the individual because comes out and the important individual is understood and some

people _ individual is understood and some people realise how difficult it is to what — people realise how difficult it is to what alleged was true and therefore you could understand. you might _ therefore you could understand. you might not _ therefore you could understand. you might not have believed it in the first place, only in hindsight but it is about — first place, only in hindsight but it is about the truth as he opened the show — it is about the truth as he opened the show. �* ,., ., ., , , ., the show. alison, what does this do to trust in our— the show. alison, what does this do to trust in our audience, _ the show. alison, what does this do to trust in our audience, to - the show. alison, what does this do to trust in our audience, to people i to trust in our audience, to people watching us now on this programme and other programmes across the bbc? trust is very hard to build and easy to lose and unfortunately this story comes off the back of the gary lineker twitter storm earlier and then the resignation of the then chairman of the bbc richard sharp, and so this is the third one in quick succession. i think audiences definitely noticed the gary lineker story, perhaps not so much interested in the richard sharp story from an odious perspective. in this case i think it depends who the presenter is and what they end up saying and what relationship they have with the audience. there is definitely interest from the public in this story, i think ijust want

to know who it is at the moment. that is why the investigation has to be thorough and transparent to help rebuild that trust.— rebuild that trust. thank you both ve much rebuild that trust. thank you both very much and — rebuild that trust. thank you both very much and for— rebuild that trust. thank you both very much and for talking - rebuild that trust. thank you both very much and for talking to i rebuild that trust. thank you both very much and for talking to our. very much and for talking to our audience. the records keep coming — june was the hottest on record in the uk, in canada, this year's wildfire season is expected to be the worst one yet, and climate scientists are warning that 2023 could be the hottest year on record. what does this tell us about long term global warming? here's kate. temperature records have been tumbling. global sea surface temperatures reached a record high in may, june and july. last week saw the hottest day ever, four days in a row. these pink lines are the average daily global temperature across each year between 1979 and 2022. and this is the line for 2023. last thursday saw a record average of 17.23 degrees. beating the previous 2016 record by 0.3 degrees. now, the uk may not have experienced

searing heat last week — but almost every continent has been contributing to this record global average. there's been a heat dome across southern us states. prolonged drought conditions across south america. heatwaves in north africa and china. and despite it being the middle of winter in antarctica, one research base registered a record 8.7 degrees. antarctic sea ice has been at its lowest levels since satellite observations began. with 2.6 million fewer square kilometres than average. now, there are certainly some things contributing which aren't man—made climate change. take the record sea surface temperatures. they're currently being influenced by a natural climate pattern called el nino which comes along every three to seven years. when that happens surface ocean winds across the tropical pacific weaken. reducing the pull for cooler water to come to the surface. typically el nino's are followed by higher temperatures. there are other factors too. plumes of dust from north african deserts are typically blown across the atlantic — blocking out sunlight. this year that dust level is significantly lower than usual.

that could be letting light in and heating things up. then there's shipping. new fuel regulations have recently brought down emissions of sulphur dioxide by around 10%. but while that pollutant can impact people's health — in the atmosphere it also reflects sunlight and helps form clouds. some researchers suggest the sudden drop could also be playing a role in these record temperatures. despite all these short term issues, scientists still think climate change is playing a significant role. fast analysis by the non profit climate central has found current heatwaves in the us and china were made at least five times more likely by our warming world. and that weather has consequences. a new paper out today found heat waves across europe caused more than 61,000 heat—attributable deaths last summer. almost 3,500 were in the uk. these latest trends have scientists worried. we are very much out of the climate that we were used to and our

societys and ecosystems have been adapted for centuries. now when we have natural conditions that lead to high temperatures like el nino events, because we have this very strong underlying warming trend we get immediately in uncharted territory, but if we don't stop burning fossil fuels this will not be an extreme event at all, this will bejust be an extreme event at all, this will be just what summer it looks like. fredi points out though the temperatures in an el nino year tend to peak towards the start of august. there is a whole month of our summer to go when further temperature records can fall. let's talk to climatologist michael e mann, the author of our fragile moment: how lessons from the earth's past can help us survive the climate crisis. back in 1999, professor mann came up with the famous hockey stick—shaped graph that brought home to many for the first time the impact of carbon emissions on global temperatures. thank you very much for talking to us. first of all, joe biden and king

charles met today. it is not a big deal? ,., ., charles met today. it is not a big deal? ., , , ., , deal? good to be witty and it is. it is an important — deal? good to be witty and it is. it is an important symbolic - deal? good to be witty and it is. it l is an important symbolic thing. here we have two public figures who represent their respective countries, the united states and the uk. two countries which have a long history of contributing to the climate crisis, from the dawn of industrialisation today. so without the united states and the uk, europe, the industrial countries of the world, taking a lead here, and committing to taking the actions necessary to avert catastrophe,

sends a message to other country hoping to bring them along as well. you obviously know this is an el nino year as kate was demonstrating in her piece, so temperatures will be higher. but that is because of natural weather patterns. we have, and i thought the _ natural weather patterns. we have, and i thought the interview, they i and i thought the interview, they did a good job in laying out the different factors as did the presenter, conspiring to give us what is playing out right now, but the key underlying factor undoubtedly is the steady warming of the planet, which will continue unabated if we continue to reduce carbon pollution from fossil fuel burning and other human activity. there is natural variability on top of that but think of that is just sort of a wave and what we have is a rising tide and that rising tide of warming is due to us, carbon pollution. every time you get a peek in that wave it will be higher and higher, and pretty soon we reach thresholds that are truly catastrophic. there isn't a whole lot of time left if we are to reduce carbon emissions in time to avert those catastrophic levels of warming, more than 1.5 celsius where

we will see the worst impacts of climate change.— we will see the worst impacts of climate change. you will have had this conversation _ climate change. you will have had this conversation with _ climate change. you will have had this conversation with so - climate change. you will have had this conversation with so many i this conversation with so many people right around the world. and presumably some of those conversations are really difficult because it is going to be disruptive to our lives. it will be very expensive and i know you will say but in the long term it will be less expensive if we spend this money now, but i wonder if people are listening. do they want to make those changes to the lives? b, lat listening. do they want to make those changes to the lives? a lot of the changes — those changes to the lives? a lot of the changes that _ those changes to the lives? a lot of the changes that we _ those changes to the lives? a lot of the changes that we might - those changes to the lives? a lot of the changes that we might make i those changes to the lives? a lot of the changes that we might make in | the changes that we might make in our everyday lives are things that save us money and make us healthier and make us feel better about ourselves and they do reduce our environmental footprint and carbon emissions. that low hanging fruit, we should all do those things but we can't do it alone. individual action alone isn't going to accomplish the reductions and carbon emissions that are necessary, so we need policy. we need policy incentives that lead people to make more climate friendly choices. here is the thing. we often frame that has a cost and i think

the critics have helped gain the discussion in a way where we often talk about investment when we talk about new fossil fuel infrastructure and yet when we talk about clean renewable infrastructure energy it is suddenly framed as a cost. it is an investment, in a clean energy future. by the way, clean energy and renewable energy offers far more jobs than the heavily automated fossil fuel industry.— jobs than the heavily automated fossil fuel industry. thank you very much for talking _ fossil fuel industry. thank you very much for talking us. _ fossil fuel industry. thank you very much for talking us. thank you. i world leaders are gathering in lithuania for tomorrow's nato summit. top of the agenda of course the war in ukraine. but also on the agenda are questions about othersjoining the bloc, and this evening the secretary general says that sweden has come a step closer tojoining. here's mark. many in ukraine had hoped that this summit would be the one

where the red carpet of nato's membership would be rolled out to them. but the most powerful member of the alliance does not believe the time is right. if the war is going on, then we're all in a war. you know, we're at war with russia if that were the case. so i think we have to lay out a path a rational path for russia, for excuse me, for ukraine to be able to qualify to get into nato. while britain and some other members favour inviting ukraine tojoin naito, that's not going to happen soon. and indeed they've already been waiting for 15 years since allies first invited ukraine to join, and the current fighting makes it impossible. there's no way nato can invite into membership a country that is in a full scale war with an adversary, because that would immediately trigger article 5,

which would bring us all into war with russia. so i'm sure the summit will come out with some artfully worded language. that's what nato's summits do, to bridge the difference of nuance, frankly. there won't be an automatic invitation tojoin. equally, there will be very warm language on ukraine continuing to move closer to nato. and as the case of sweden shows, even more vanilla countries don't get straight into nato. having voted to join earlier this year, the swedes found objections from hungary and turkey frustrated their ambition. officials had hoped that vilnius might be the moment that sweden would be formally welcomed in, but that will take a little longer. early today, turkey's president raised a whole new reason to hold that process up. first, open the way i to turkey's membership of the european union. and then we will open it i for sweden, just as we had opened it for finland.

in this regard, i said i the same things to mr i biden last night and i have to give i the same remarks in vilnius as well. but once in vilnius, president erdogan changed his tune. and after negotiations tonight, an apparent deal in which turkey would agree to ratify sweden's membership of nato. turkey and sweden agreed today to establish a new bilateral security compact. nato will also significantly step up its work in this area. and i will establish for the first time at nato the post of special coordinator for counterterrorism. instead of membership what nato will promise ukraine is security guarantees and weapons like the f—16 to maintain a technical edge over russia. and the first of these modern jets should arrive in the autumn.

its security guarantees for ukraine can't mean what we have in nato, which is a collective defense guarantee. in other words, an attack on one is an attack on all. i think they really mean cast iron assurances we will go on supporting ukraine with arms, the latest equipment, with finance, with economic reconstruction aid to ensure that they are strong and spiky enough as a country that no future russian leader will want to give this another go. i think that's what it really means. as ukrainian troops fight on, struggling to turn the tables on the battlefield, the diplomats will be attempting to find the right language, trying to square the circle of why a country that does so much for western security cannot for now join the nato alliance. i am nowjoined by former us ambassador to nato under the trump administration, kay bailey hutchison, in dallas, texas. thank you very much for talking to

our british audience. if i can ask you first of all, why is the us more reluctant than other nato allies to offer a clear pathway for ukraine's membership of the bloc? i offer a clear pathway for ukraine's membership of the bloc?- membership of the bloc? i think it is very important _ membership of the bloc? i think it is very important that _ membership of the bloc? i think it is very important that we - membership of the bloc? i think it is very important that we give i membership of the bloc? i think it is very important that we give all. is very important that we give all of the assurances to ukraine that they deserve, and i think nato has done that, certainly the united states and the uk has, as well. but to talk about membership right now is premature. of course we would not want to be putting our own troops' lives on the line in this conflict that has been ongoing now for over a year. i think we will have ukraine at some point in nato and it will be the most rapid accession that we can make it. , ., , , make it. sorry to interrupt, but presumably _ make it. sorry to interrupt, but presumably that _ make it. sorry to interrupt, but presumably that means - make it. sorry to interrupt, but presumably that means at i make it. sorry to interrupt, but| presumably that means at some make it. sorry to interrupt, but i presumably that means at some point when the war is over. doesn't that

give even more of an incentive to putin to continue low—level attacks in 12 months, 2a months, three years? i in 12 months, 24 months, three ears? ., �* ~' in 12 months, 24 months, three ears? ., �* ~ in 12 months, 24 months, three ears? .,�* ~ , , years? i don't think so because i think that _ years? i don't think so because i think that the _ years? i don't think so because i think that the actual _ years? i don't think so because i think that the actual munitions i years? i don't think so because i i think that the actual munitions that we are going to give them, are going to escalate, we know that f—16s are on the mark, longer range missiles are on the mark, the cluster bombs that are controversial but will nonetheless give ukraine a much bigger capability to push back the russians that are on their sovereign territory. i think that they will get all of those assurances, and we will be there for them. but i think the alliance has to be unanimous. bringing in all of the other factors of rebuilding ukraine and making sure that it has what it needs to have that resilient democracy, which i know that they will, it is just a

timing issue. it is not an issue of f, it is more when.— timing issue. it is not an issue of f, it is more when. donald trump, ou f, it is more when. donald trump, you worked — f, it is more when. donald trump, you worked under— f, it is more when. donald trump, you worked under his _ f, it is more when. donald trump, i you worked under his administration, orany you worked under his administration, or any other republican becomes the next president, what you think that will mean for the us's support for ukraine? i will mean for the us's support for ukraine? ~ ., ., , , , ukraine? i think that congress is in a bipartisan — ukraine? i think that congress is in a bipartisan way — ukraine? i think that congress is in a bipartisan way totally _ ukraine? i think that congress is in a bipartisan way totally supportive | a bipartisan way totally supportive of helping ukraine, making sure that ukraine wins this war. i think the only controversy in congress is how much we do quicker. i think that congress is there.— much we do quicker. i think that congress is there. what about if it is president _ congress is there. what about if it is president trump _ congress is there. what about if it is president trump or _ congress is there. what about if it is president trump or president i is president trump or president desantis? i is president trump or president desantis? ~ , , desantis? i think they will be absolutely — desantis? i think they will be absolutely for _ desantis? i think they will be absolutely for helping i desantis? i think they will be i absolutely for helping ukraine. i think both of them have made a mistake in not being more forthright about it, but i think that... the consensus in congress is going to

remain. that is going to be essential. remain. that is going to be essential-— remain. that is going to be essential. ., , ., ,, ., essential. that is congress. you say the have essential. that is congress. you say they have not _ essential. that is congress. you say they have not been _ essential. that is congress. you say they have not been more _ essential. that is congress. you sayj they have not been more forthright, thatis they have not been more forthright, that is the understatement of the year. the... one said essentially it was a small territorial dispute that had no concern to the us. that was very early. — had no concern to the us. that was very early, before _ had no concern to the us. that was very early, before he _ had no concern to the us. that was very early, before he really - had no concern to the us. that was very early, before he really had i had no concern to the us. that was very early, before he really had all| very early, before he really had all of the facts. i believe that he would be there, i think the fact that congress is so bipartisan in its support of ukraine, and seeing the importance of this to us security, to the security of our country, as well as all of our nato allies, i think that will prevail in the election and also in the future for nato and for the ukraine support from the us. we for nato and for the ukraine support from the us-— for nato and for the ukraine support from the us. we will see. thank you so much for— from the us. we will see. thank you so much for talking _ from the us. we will see. thank you so much for talking to _ from the us. we will see. thank you so much for talking to our _ from the us. we will see. thank you so much for talking to our audience. |

a bbc africa eye investigation has raised serious concerns about one of the world's leading anti—slavery organisations and their west african operations. internationaljustice mission raised more than three million pounds in the uk last year with the support of near 300 churches across the country. some of the money funded operations in ghana, where ijm aims to rescue trafficked children and reunite them with theirfamilies. however, a bbc undercover investigation has found evidence that the charity's activities have caused some children to be taken away from their homes in traumatic night raids. kyenkyenhene boateng reports. this is mogyigna, a village in northern ghana. back in september 2022, ijm and the local armed police conducted a night raid here. translation: i decided to crawl to see what was happening. i then a gun was held to my throat. i stood up and leaned

against the wall. what have i done? tell us. are you going to kill us"? they said no. ijm's mission that night was to free four children identified as victims of trafficking. but these women insist they were looking after their own grandchildren when they were taken away by force. translation: i was worried. that they're going to kill the kids. what were they going to do with them? after the raid, the children were taken from their village to a hotel where they were photographed, washed, and fed, and then moved to a shelter. theirfamilies had no information about their whereabouts. 11—year—old fatima is the eldest. can you tell me how you felt when you were taken away from your grandparents? translation: they just| came in and grabbed me.

one of the men held a gun to my grandmother's throat as if to shoot her. so i was terrified and i started crying. i thought they were taking us away to kill us. we didn't know where they were taking us. this raid was part of ijm's efforts to combat child trafficking into the local fishing industry, a known issue in the area. but some of the rescue missions have been accused of doing more harm than good to the local communities. the concerns are shared by this local mp, who believes many of the children targeted by ijm are also simply living with extended family. these children have not been sold, transferred. they are not under any question. the family feel that their only means of survival is by going fishing, teaching the children their trade. i've met these children. i've met these children. i've met with their families. i've met with their families. what they need is to be what they need is to be with their families and not taken away and kept at places with their families and not taken

that we don't know. bbc africaeye went undercover bbc africaeye went undercover to investigate the allegations. to investigate the allegations. posing as an intern for ijm posing as an intern for ijm in ghana, our undercoverjournalist in ghana, our undercoverjournalist was given access to one was given access to one of the charity's work forms. of the charity's work forms. in there we found hundreds in there we found hundreds of whatsapp messages of whatsapp messages from dozens of rescue missions, from dozens of rescue missions, including the raid during including the raid during which fatima was taken. which fatima was taken. in these texts, a legal officerfrom ijm clarifies their understanding prior their understanding prior to this operation. to this operation. mohamed's case was assessed mohamed's case was assessed to be a trafficking case. to be a trafficking case. for the other three girls it came up there were no elements of trafficking. elements of trafficking. the messages show that the messages show that despite the lack of trafficking evidence, ijm continue to support despite the lack of trafficking the village rescue and all four children were taken. children were taken. but why? according to this staff member, ijm is target driven with teams expected to support such numbers of rescues and arrests

by the authorities.