and if we had a network. of those people, perhaps they could compare notes. the metropolitan police open an investigation into actor russel brand over an alleged sexual assault in london, in 2003. a complaint was made this morning following weekend reports into brand's treatment of women.as yet no charges but again it raises broader issues pertaining to the tv industry. we will discuss. also tonight ransom diplomacy. five iranian americans on their way home, after the white house sanctioned a payment of 6 billion euros to the regime in terhan. we will dig deeper into how that deal was brokered. and 150 world leaders in new york for a summit on development.

why is the un missing all its crucial targets? good evening. the metropolitan police say they have received an allegation of sexual assault, that's been made against the comedian and actor russell brand, dating back to 2003. detectives say they are in contact with the woman who has made the claim, and are supporting her. it follows the publication of an investigation into alleged sexual offences this weekend, all of which russell brand denies. separate to the police inquiry, the bbc and channel four said they were opening their own internal investigations. the times and sunday times who first ran the story says more women have come forward since their weekend report. one of the women who has accused russell brand says she was just 16 when she had a relationship with him. she told radio 4's woman's hour this morning that a bbc chauffeur driven car had picked her up at school and took her to the comedian�*s home.

she's being referred to as alice, and her words have been voiced by an actor. he knew before we even went on our first date. so, when we met initially and he took my number and asked me out on a date, he hadn't asked me, but he didn't know, so i texted him prior to, because he said he knew i was stalling on agreeing on a date with him. and he said, "why aren't you?" he said, "what's going on? like, why don't you want to go out with me?" i said, "because i've got something to tell you." i said, "i'm 16". and hejust replied, saying, "ok, so we're still on for dinner at 7.30?" and how old was he? he was 30. what do you want to say about that now as an older woman? now that i'm in my 30s, looking at 16—year—olds i can't even imagine finding them sexually attractive. i can't imagine even thinking of them as that, you know, a potential "mate" in any way. itjust seems the feelings i have towards them are maternal, protective feelings, i couldn't even imagine...

..you just don't even put them into that category in your head. as i became an older woman and began reaching the same age as him, that's when i really started to feel angry. and felt like what had happened wasn't "consensual"? or how would you describe that? because although it is technically legal, the power imbalance, which is what you're referring to there, is huge in this? yeah, and just because you know he was telling me that i'm a very intelligent woman, i'm mature, being intelligent doesn't mean that you're not naive and you're not vulnerable and that you don't have the life experiences and your brain isn't fully developed. russell brand's platform now is mainly online where he presents himself as a wellness guru. he has six million followers on youtube, owned by google. he has four mill followers on instagram.

and this weekend he used that platform to maintain his innocence. allegations pertaining to the time when i was working in the mainstream, when i was in the newspapers all the time when i was in the movies. as i've written about it extensively in my books, i was very, very promiscuous. now during that time of promiscuity, the relationships i had were absolutely always consensual. what i seriously refute are these very, very serious criminal allegations. this morning russell brand's talent agency tavistock wood "terminated all professional ties" with him. tonight the theatre royal in windsor said it was cancelling his tuesday night performance. profjonathan shalit, is one of london's biggest talent managers, he is the chair of the intertalent rights group. also with us lucia osborne—crowley, who herself is a rape survivor, though i should stress nothing to do with this case, and now reports on the law surrounding celebrity cases like this one. welcome to you both. professor, we must be careful because it is for

the police to decide whether there has been any criminality and there is due process we must respect. but what would you say about the many examples we have played today on the bbc of his behaviour on air at the height of his fame?— bbc of his behaviour on air at the height of his fame? nothing short of horrific, apparent. _ height of his fame? nothing short of horrific, apparent. i— height of his fame? nothing short of horrific, apparent. i am _ height of his fame? nothing short of horrific, apparent. i am very - horrific, apparent. i am very conscious that i am interviewing this evening alongside a rape survivor and as a man i cannot begin to imagine the mental anguish some of these women must now be feeling when they look back and hearing the early interviewee that now she is a grown woman, what she thought she knew she didn't know when she was younger. the truth is, the people empowered this should also be held to account. it is reminiscent of other people in the past. michael

jackson is dead, and the dead man cannot sue, but the people around him and the behaviour, even if it was legal, it was inappropriate and thatis was legal, it was inappropriate and that is the problem about what we are talking about now. we are talking about the people, and from some years ago, by the way. it is important the bosses of the bbc and the bosses of channel 4 today are not held responsible because they were not in power than. but the people back then empowered this. it is quite staggering that people who were mainly family people with children would empower this kind of behaviour, i don't know what to say. i think at that point, jonathan, there is a distinction, is there not, between criminality, which has to be decided on what is morally good. when you look back at some of these examples, all the way back to 2006 and the way he refers to women and the way he refers to what he's going to do to women, why did that

not set any alarm bells ringing? the --eole not set any alarm bells ringing? tue: people who not set any alarm bells ringing? tte: people who were not set any alarm bells ringing? t'te: people who were there not set any alarm bells ringing? tte: people who were there have to answer that. him andjimmy people who were there have to answer that. him and jimmy savile joked about sending naked girls over. watching a clip from big brother where he took down his trousers and sat in his underpants on a girl's lap. you wonder what kind of people was producing these shows, and thought it was ok. has was producing these shows, and thought it was ok.— was producing these shows, and thought it was ok. has a change? back then. _ thought it was ok. has a change? back then. it _ thought it was ok. has a change? back then, it was on _ thought it was ok. has a change? back then, it was on the - thought it was ok. has a change? back then, it was on the line, - thought it was ok. has a change? back then, it was on the line, but | back then, it was on the line, but we turned a blind eye to it in a way you wouldn't do today?— you wouldn't do today? absolutely and anybody _ you wouldn't do today? absolutely and anybody who _ you wouldn't do today? absolutely and anybody who wants _ you wouldn't do today? absolutely and anybody who wants to - you wouldn't do today? absolutely and anybody who wants to say - you wouldn't do today? absolutely and anybody who wants to say i'm | and anybody who wants to say i'm wrong, i take you to task. terror vision, the workplace is very different. what was acceptable back thenis different. what was acceptable back then is no longer accepted. you get then is no longer accepted. you get the odd rogue everywhere, but in the workplace and in the media and entertainment business, this

behaviour would not be tolerated. if it happened and it was reported that person would be fired. look what happened at the ceo of bp last week, he was fired. it happens in all industries, but it is not tolerated now. my co—interviewee obviously went through an horrific experience herself, i'm sure she will talk about that experience, but it wouldn't happen in the same way. he wouldn't happen in the same way. he wouldn't have the controller of a television station allowing that kind of broke as, but back then it was tolerated. yet kind of broke as, but back then it was tolerated.— kind of broke as, but back then it was tolerated. yet again this was an 0 en was tolerated. yet again this was an open secret — was tolerated. yet again this was an open secret and _ was tolerated. yet again this was an open secret and yet _ was tolerated. yet again this was an open secret and yet again _ was tolerated. yet again this was an open secret and yet again we - was tolerated. yet again this was an open secret and yet again we are . open secret and yet again we are talking about a selective morality in broadcasting when it comes to the highest—paid talent, why does this keep re—occurring? tt highest-paid talent, why does this keep re-occurring?— highest-paid talent, why does this keep re-occurring? it doesn't keep re-occurring- _ keep re-occurring? it doesn't keep re-occurring. let _ keep re-occurring? it doesn't keep re-occurring. let me _ keep re-occurring? it doesn't keep re-occurring. let me bring - keep re-occurring? it doesn't keep re-occurring. let me bring in - keep re-occurring? it doesn't keep re-occurring. let me bring in our. re-occurring. let me bring in our other guests- — re-occurring. let me bring in our other guests. your— re-occurring. let me bring in our other guests. your point - re-occurring. let me bring in our other guests. your point is - re-occurring. let me bring in our. other guests. your point is exactly ri . ht. we other guests. your point is exactly right- we have _ other guests. your point is exactly

right. we have seen _ other guests. your point is exactly right. we have seen again - other guests. your point is exactly right. we have seen again and - other guests. your point is exactly i right. we have seen again and again that these _ right. we have seen again and again that these people had been hiding in plain sight for a very, very long time _ plain sight for a very, very long time and _ plain sight for a very, very long time. and that speaks to the culture of the _ time. and that speaks to the culture of the media industry, the television industry and celebrity in generat _ television industry and celebrity in general. and when we look back on it now, _ general. and when we look back on it now. and _ general. and when we look back on it now. and i_ general. and when we look back on it now, and i completely agree, i do think— now, and i completely agree, i do think this — now, and i completely agree, i do think this has changed when we look back on_ think this has changed when we look back on the — think this has changed when we look back on the things that were hiding in plain— back on the things that were hiding in plain sight, we wonder how we let these _ in plain sight, we wonder how we let these things be broadcast because now these things be broadcast because how we _ these things be broadcast because now we live in a world where people are starting — now we live in a world where people are starting to be held to account. but another part of that is that these — but another part of that is that these allegations take so long to be reported. _ these allegations take so long to be reported, to come forward. i reported _ reported, to come forward. i reported on #metoo allegations all the time _ reported on #metoo allegations all the time and it is so much harder than _ the time and it is so much harder than people think it is to report on these _ than people think it is to report on these allegations. you than people think it is to report on these allegations.— these allegations. you say that --eole these allegations. you say that people are _ these allegations. you say that people are held _ these allegations. you say that people are held to _ these allegations. you say that people are held to account, - these allegations. you say that| people are held to account, but these allegations. you say that i people are held to account, but i have read some of the things you have read some of the things you have written about and you say we

are woefully ill—equipped to deliver justice for abuse survivors in these types of cases. why is that the case? , , ~ . case? yes, i still think we are woefully ill-equipped - case? yes, i still think we are woefully ill-equipped to - case? yes, i still think we are woefully ill-equipped to deal| case? yes, i still think we are - woefully ill-equipped to deal with woefully ill—equipped to deal with these _ woefully ill—equipped to deal with these kinds of cases. there are a number— these kinds of cases. there are a number of— these kinds of cases. there are a number of reasons for that. one, we have an _ number of reasons for that. one, we have an incredibly insidious culture are blaming, which still happens in our court _ are blaming, which still happens in our court rooms and i spend all day and every— our court rooms and i spend all day and every day in the court and i see the way— and every day in the court and i see the way victims are cross—examined about— the way victims are cross—examined about their— the way victims are cross—examined about their own behaviour, the way victims _ about their own behaviour, the way victims are — about their own behaviour, the way victims are put on trial and made to feel like _ victims are put on trial and made to feel like they are on trial instead of the _ feel like they are on trial instead of the perpetrators. it is because of the perpetrators. it is because of that— of the perpetrators. it is because of that that victims are so afraid to come — of that that victims are so afraid to come forward, because we still have _ to come forward, because we still have a _ to come forward, because we still have a system that punishes victims who do— have a system that punishes victims who do come forward. either through the trial— who do come forward. either through the trial process or through things like nondisclosure agreements or threats— like nondisclosure agreements or threats of— like nondisclosure agreements or threats of defamation. we have heard today that _ threats of defamation. we have heard today that russell brand made threats — today that russell brand made

threats about legal action against one of— threats about legal action against one of the accusers if they did come forward _ one of the accusers if they did come forward. this is a really, really important _ forward. this is a really, really important issue we need to be discussing because the law can be recognised by the wealthy and the powerful— recognised by the wealthy and the powerful through civil actions like defamation. it is to try and silence victims _ defamation. it is to try and silence victims. ~ . ., victims. what about the confidentiality - victims. what about the i confidentiality agreements victims. what about the - confidentiality agreements and nondisclosure agreements? it took four years for this report to come to fruition, so there has clearly been a tussle with the lawyers. speaking more broadly, are these agreements being used to silence victims and to allow the perpetrators to carry on their behaviour in perpetuity? absolutely, the are. behaviour in perpetuity? absolutely, they are- not— behaviour in perpetuity? absolutely, they are- not in _ behaviour in perpetuity? absolutely, they are. not in every _ behaviour in perpetuity? absolutely, they are. not in every case, - behaviour in perpetuity? absolutely, they are. not in every case, of- they are. not in every case, of course, — they are. not in every case, of course, but _ they are. not in every case, of course, but they are very, very powerful — course, but they are very, very powerful tool. course, but they are very, very powerfultool. i course, but they are very, very powerful tool. i have spoken to survivors— powerful tool. i have spoken to survivors of very high profile people — survivors of very high profile people who have now been convicted

about _ people who have now been convicted about the _ people who have now been convicted about the nda is they signed decades a-o. about the nda is they signed decades ago they— about the nda is they signed decades ago. they were put in place years and years— ago. they were put in place years and years ago to make sure nobody ever speaks— and years ago to make sure nobody ever speaks out. the thing is, and nda is— ever speaks out. the thing is, and nda is a _ ever speaks out. the thing is, and nda is a contract so it is governed by the _ nda is a contract so it is governed by the law— nda is a contract so it is governed by the law of contract and the law of contract — by the law of contract and the law of contract tells us if two people make _ of contract tells us if two people make an — of contract tells us if two people make an agreement than the court should _ make an agreement than the court should uphold the agreement. but what that— should uphold the agreement. but what that doesn't take into account, as we _ what that doesn't take into account, as we have — what that doesn't take into account, as we have discussed previously, is the imbalance of power in this situation _ the imbalance of power in this situation. so for example, if you have _ situation. so for example, if you have a _ situation. so for example, if you have a person like harvey weinstein and his— have a person like harvey weinstein and his legal team asking a very, very young — and his legal team asking a very, very young person to sign an nda, that is— very young person to sign an nda, that is not— very young person to sign an nda, that is not two equal partners signing — that is not two equal partners signing a _ that is not two equal partners signing a contract. and we have seen the ciauses _ signing a contract. and we have seen the clauses in those ndas that are incredibly— the clauses in those ndas that are incredibly unfair given the imbalance of power. also, you cannot

actuatiy _ imbalance of power. also, you cannot actually contract out, for example, reporting _ actually contract out, for example, reporting a — actually contract out, for example, reporting a crime to the police. but a person— reporting a crime to the police. but a person signing an nda, a vulnerable person, doesn't have legal— vulnerable person, doesn't have legal advice and legal advice is very expensive. if they don't have the legal— very expensive. if they don't have the legal advice to say, this is not fair and _ the legal advice to say, this is not fair and you — the legal advice to say, this is not fair and you shouldn't be signing this, _ fair and you shouldn't be signing this, then — fair and you shouldn't be signing this, then people will sign what they are — this, then people will sign what they are asked to sign because of they are asked to sign because of the imbalance of power when we are talking _ the imbalance of power when we are talking about wealth and celebrity. the thing — talking about wealth and celebrity. the thing about the law, it is controlled by wealth in our current system _ controlled by wealth in our current system and that makes it easily recognised by these people. there is a ower recognised by these people. there is a power dynamic. — recognised by these people. there is a power dynamic, unquestionably, i a power dynamic, unquestionably, jonathan. in terms of this culture of celebrity and power and reaffirming that power it is not only the broadcasters that are to blame. i had david allan, the former editor of the sun newspaper this

morning, his former newspaper, not while he was there, but his former newspaper labelled russell brand, excuse my language, sugar of the year. doesn't that call some of these problems?— year. doesn't that call some of these problems? year. doesn't that call some of these roblems? , . , , ., ., these problems? yes, many years ago these problems? yes, many years ago the had these problems? yes, many years ago they had that — these problems? yes, many years ago they had that tape _ these problems? yes, many years ago they had that tape of _ these problems? yes, many years ago they had that tape of king _ these problems? yes, many years ago they had that tape of king charles - they had that tape of king charles saying he wishes he was a tampon inside camilla. everybody laughed about it, but it was an intrusion on the king and he was very dignified about it. the people by the papers, they watch the show so they support it. it is not fairjust to blame the broadcaster because the public also love it. but we are talking in the past, it is very important. the law, is very expensive and cannot take it

on is absolutely right. but that is notjust on is absolutely right. but that is not just television and entertainment, notjust television and entertainment, it is all walks of life. historically, not so much now, the power of the star, the power of the power of the star, the power of the presenter. everyone looks up to them, the star of the show and to a certain extent to be the start of the show you have massive charisma. but the star of the show could not now behave in this way. it happened to phillip schofield recently, things have changed. what russell brand did back then it would not happen now. t brand did back then it would not happen now-— brand did back then it would not ha en now. ~ ., happen now. i think the safeguarding is much tighter _ happen now. i think the safeguarding is much tighter than _ happen now. i think the safeguarding is much tighter than it _ happen now. i think the safeguarding is much tighter than it was. - happen now. i think the safeguarding is much tighter than it was. good - happen now. i think the safeguarding is much tighter than it was. good to l is much tighter than it was. good to talk to you both, thank you for coming on the programme. thank you for havin: coming on the programme. thank you for having me- — around the world and across the uk. this is bbc news. let's now take a look at some other stories making news — here in the uk:

detectives believe they have discovered the remains of a couple — whose daughter has been charged with their murder. essex police was called to an address in pump hill, chelmsford, after thirty—five—year—old virginia mccullough appeared in court, charged with killing her parents at some point between 2018 and 2023. people in england aged 65 and over are being urged to get a top—up covid booster vaccine. an increasing number of people are attending hospital with the virus — but while hospital numbers are up, intensive care admissions are low. the rollout�*s been brought forward as a precaution against a highly—mutated new covid variant called ba2.86. the cost of renting a home in the uk rose by i2—percent in the year to august — that's according to estate agency hamptons. the group says it's the highest rise since it started its survey in 2014. the uptick in the past 12 months is greater than the increase experienced over the four

years to 2019. you're live with bbc news. five american citizens who were jailed for years in one of iran's most notorious prisons, are finally on their way home to the united states after they were freed today as part of a complex financial arrangement. the four men and one woman, who also hold iranian passports, were flown out of tehran to doha, in qatar. their release dependent on the transfer of $6bn in iranian funds, money that iran earned from selling oil to south korea. the funds, which had long been held in south korean currency, were transferred from seoul to swiss banks as part of the agreement and then converted into euros before being wired to qatari banks. us secretary of state antony blinken spoke to them — here's what he said. it was for them. for me. an emotional conversation. it's easy in the work that we do every day. sometimes to get.

..lost in the abstractions of foreign policy and relations with other countries. and forgetting the human element that's at the heart of everything we do. but today, their freedom, the freedom of these americans for so long, unjustly imprisoned and detained in iran means some pretty basic things. it means that husbands and wives, fathers and children, grandparents can hug each other again. we can see each other again. can be with each other again. with me is ambassadorjoel reyburn, senior national security council official on the middle east during the trump administration, and also us special envoy to syria from 2018 to 2021. i'm alsojoined by aaron david miller, senior fellow at the carnegie

endowment for international peace. maybe i could start with you, aaron miller. what do you know about the negotiation and how this financial arrangement was organised, who was it that was the broker? the negotiations, _ it that was the broker? the negotiations, it _ it that was the broker? the negotiations, it is - it that was the broker? tte: negotiations, it is like an iceberg, a quarter is above the water and three quarters below. it has been emerging for at least a year and a half. the return of five americans for a change of five iranian nationals in prison and exchange for roughly $67 million. it would be south korean banks to be deposited and dispensed defenders so can make legitimate claims for goods and services that are considered humanitarian in nature. i think it is also, frankly part of a broader

set of indirect discussions and negotiations that the united states has been having, i think. it is an effort to de—escalate a clearly fraught situation between the united states and iran over iran's nuclear programme. it is apiece,, frankly. there are no good deals with iran, only varying degrees of bad ones. i think this administration did the right thing, bringing them home. but we should not be under any illusions here. we we should not be under any illusions here. ~ , , ., ~ ., here. we will speak to the ambassador _ here. we will speak to the ambassador in _ here. we will speak to the ambassador in the - here. we will speak to the ambassador in the studio. | here. we will speak to the i ambassador in the studio. mr here. we will speak to the - ambassador in the studio. mr miller thinks the administration probably

did the right thing to bring americans home. the question is, what will the money be useful? the administration's claim and the irani regime _ administration's claim and the irani regime claim will be that it can only— regime claim will be that it can only be — regime claim will be that it can only be used for humanitarian uses. it only be used for humanitarian uses. it wiii— only be used for humanitarian uses. it will free _ only be used for humanitarian uses. it will free up resources to be used for any— it will free up resources to be used for any purpose by the iranian regime — for any purpose by the iranian regime elsewhere. we shouldn't be distracted _ regime elsewhere. we shouldn't be distracted by that. i agree with aaron. — distracted by that. i agree with aaron. i— distracted by that. i agree with aaron, i think the biden administration is engaged in a broader— administration is engaged in a broader de—escalation deal or moving towards _ broader de—escalation deal or moving towards a _ broader de—escalation deal or moving towards a deal with the iranian regime, — towards a deal with the iranian regime, which is extremely unwise because _ regime, which is extremely unwise because the de—escalation without a credible _ because the de—escalation without a credible deterrent of credible pressure amounts to appeasement. this is— pressure amounts to appeasement. this is a — pressure amounts to appeasement. this is a capital, london, that knows — this is a capital, london, that knows very— this is a capital, london, that knows very well what happens, the

inevitable — knows very well what happens, the inevitable conclusion of a policy of appeasement. inevitable conclusion of a policy of appeasement-— inevitable conclusion of a policy of appeasement. you're talking about the iran hostage _ appeasement. you're talking about the iran hostage us? _ appeasement. you're talking about the iran hostage us? not _ appeasement. you're talking about the iran hostage us? notjust- appeasement. you're talking about the iran hostage us? notjust the l the iran hostage us? not 'ust the iran the iran hostage us? not 'ust the tran hostage * the iran hostage us? not 'ust the iran hostage but * the iran hostage us? not 'ust the iran hostage but against _ the iran hostage us? notjust the iran hostage but against us - the iran hostage us? notjust the iran hostage but against us and l iran hostage but against us and against — iran hostage but against us and against our allies in the region and to engage — against our allies in the region and to engage in this kind of resourcing at the _ to engage in this kind of resourcing at the iran— to engage in this kind of resourcing at the iran regime, it is counter—productive. at the iran regime, it is counter-productive. but you administration _ counter-productive. but you administration walks - counter-productive. but you administration walks away i counter-productive. but you i administration walks away from counter-productive. but you - administration walks away from the nuclear deal because iran was funding a ballistic missiles programme. 6 billion euros is money on top of what they already have, money they don't necessarily have to put into food and medicine, so how will this play at home in an election season? it will this play at home in an election season?— will this play at home in an election season? , ., ., ., election season? it is not going to -la well. election season? it is not going to play well. appeasement _ election season? it is not going to play well. appeasement of - election season? it is not going to play well. appeasement of the i play well. appeasement of the iranian— play well. appeasement of the iranian regime is a very unpopular thing _ iranian regime is a very unpopular thing with— iranian regime is a very unpopular thing with the american electorate. president _ thing with the american electorate. president trump walked away because it has a _ president trump walked away because it has a fatal internal in contradiction, which it puts your most _ contradiction, which it puts your most effective non—war tool,

economic— most effective non—war tool, economic sanctions behind glass and it says _ economic sanctions behind glass and it says you _ economic sanctions behind glass and it says you can only break the glass for nuclear— it says you can only break the glass for nuclear violations. meanwhile, it leaves— for nuclear violations. meanwhile, it leaves the iranian regime free to use its— it leaves the iranian regime free to use its ballistic missiles to wreck havoc— use its ballistic missiles to wreck havoc around the world as well as its terrorist — havoc around the world as well as its terrorist proxies to conduct attacks — its terrorist proxies to conduct attacks in— its terrorist proxies to conduct attacks in the united states and elsewhere. president trump said you cannot— elsewhere. president trump said you cannot leave me with no option between — cannot leave me with no option between war and capitulation. that is wh he between war and capitulation. that is why he walked _ between war and capitulation. tngt is why he walked away. listening to the husband of nazanin is a gary ratcliffe, that came home last year and he is concerned we are playing into the hands of the iranians, it could mutate into execution policy. will that fuel further hostagetaking? will that fuel further hostaaaetakin? . ., , hostagetaking? iranians need

additional... _ hostagetaking? iranians need additional... the _ hostagetaking? iranians need additional... the iranian i hostagetaking? iranians need i additional... the iranian regime is going to act against their own citizens and dual nationals, it is a game, a cruel game. in this respect getting our people home, i think is warranted. however we have a strategic problem with iran and we don't have a strategic solution. and that is the dilemma. maximum pressure didn't work. some argue that it might have. when you have a nasty regime that suppresses its own citizens, it is

now a nuclear—weapons threshold state, all the ingredients required enough materialfor a couple of nuclear—weapons. we don't have a strategic solution to the problem. thank you both very much for coming into the studio. we will be right back. hello again. although not on the same scale as the severe thunderstorms we had last night, we have had some pretty heavy downpours across parts of east anglia and cambridgeshire through the day to day. these storms produced around 11 millimetres in the space ofjust one hour, which is a pretty hefty downpour of rain. the weather picture this week is looking very unsettled. it's all down to a strong jet stream across the atlantic, 150 mile an hour winds high up in the atmosphere.

and it's this trough that makes areas of low pressure. they are going to get steered one after the next across the uk with tightly packed ice bars. well, that tells you it's going to be windy because it's the, i suppose the pressure gradient that makes the wind blow in the first place. now, overnight, it's nice. initially we've got a few showers, but later in the night we'll see a band of heavy rain spread across northern ireland before getting into parts of scotland, england and wales. mild in the south, cooler air in the north, the winds picking up all the way through the night. and then for tomorrow, a wet and windy day on the cards. the rainfall totals really building up over the high ground of wales and north west england where over the next couple of days we could be looking at some localised flooding. this strong zone of winds will push the band of rain northwards across northern ireland, northern england and into scotland with a peak winds probably working into north west wales where around the coast and hills gusts could reach 60 odd miles an hour. but for most of us, it will be a very windy day, windy enough to bring down a few tree branches. there could be some localised disruption in just one or two areas. now about five days ago, hurricane lee was spinning around out in the tropical atlantic. since then, it turned into a normal

area of low pressure that brought wet and windy weather to eastern canada over the weekend. and well, what's left of that hurricane is tied in with this area of low pressure. so we've got some wet and windy weather moving its way eastwards across the country for wednesday. a cold front moving across england and wales, bringing a short lived but intense spell of rain. some very strong wind gusts just on and ahead of this weather front and to the western side of scotland, we could also see a zone of very strong winds with gusts maybe reaching as much as 60 or 70 miles an hour. however, there is still uncertainty about the exact strength of those winds for west scotland. itjust depends on the shape and the depth of that area of low pressure. it will stay wet and windy though into thursday. friday, quite a few showers around saturday, probably dry, but more rain on the way for sunday. that's the latest.

hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic in the united states. researchers say there was a record number of overdoses in 2021, with a 60% rise in people dying from fentanyl.

we will get into that all very shortly. let's go to the bbc sportscenter with becky. let's go to the bbc sportscenter with becky. hello from the bbc sport centre. jenni hermoso has not been included in spain's first squad since winning the women's world cup, but 15 members of that triumphant team have been named. a large number of players boycotted the team after then football federation boss luis rubiales kissed forward hermoso following last month's final. the fall out led to rubiales resigning. the fallout led to rubiales resigning. on friday, 39 players — including 21 of the 23 world cup winners — said their strike would continue until further changes were made. this is the first squad announcement by new coach montse tome, who replaced jorge vilda. it's unclear if the players who have been called up have ended their strike. the captain of scotland women, rachel corsie, says she thinks the agreement she's reached with the scottish fa will help make the nation a "leader". last week, corsie withdrew an inequality case

against the association after an understanding was reached.