to check on the sport, here's sarah. the nations league continues around europe this evening with eight games under way right now. this is how things stands at the moment — pick out a couple. kolo muani scored from the spot to put france 1—0 up against belgium. they missed the chance to score before the france goal when in, and if italy failed to get a win against israel and france would go top of the group. one up would go top of the group. one up in the moment, goal is between germany and netherlands and there was also a penalty that has wheels ahead against montenegro, harry wilson scoring from the spot there. you can get the full details on the bbc sport app the nigerian football team say they will boycott their africa cup of nations

qualifier in libya after being stranded and locked in an airport overnight, over 100 miles away from their destination. the super eagles were due to land in benghazi on sunday but their plane was instead diverted to al abraq. their captain william troost—ekong posted on social media that it was disgraceful behaviour and the team had decided not to play the game. the libyan football federation responded, saying they were deeply concerned about the reports — they have the uttermost respect for their nigerian counterparts and the diversion of their flight was not intentional. here is bbc sport africa's emmanuel akindubuwa. the country'sminister of sport instructed the nigerian football federation to over the weight the team was treated, 16 hours they were stranded at the airport. there is no way the team will be in the right

physical condition to play the game. according to rules, they should expect the host team should expect the host team should welcome them and provide them the necessary welfare. the federation of african football has stepped in, it has opened investigations and directed its disciplinary committee to look into the concerns raised by both teams, both have the concerns. they will come up with a position on this but now we can confirm the nigerian team are coming back to their country and the game will not grow. new zealand secured a semifinal place at the women's t20 world cup with a 54—run win over pakistan in theirfinal group match in dubai. the white ferns won the toss and batted first, reaching iio for six thanks to 28 from opening batter suzie bates. amelia kerr swept up the pakistan tail by taking three wickets in two point four overs as new zealand replaced india in second place

in the final group a standings and advanced to a semifinal against either england or south africa. england's women play theirfinal group match at the t20 world cup tomorrow. if they beat the west indies in dubai they will qualify for the semi—finals as group winners and avoid australia. lose and it will all boil down to net—run—rate whether or not they make it into the last four. i'm expecting it to be a good game, it looks like it is a little bit easier conditions in dubai so hopefully that comes to fruition for us. i think we are ready to get going, seal our place in the semifinal, hopefully and see what happens. the second test between pakistan and england starts on tuesday with the tourists looking to clinch the series after breaking numerous batting records in the first match that they won by an innings. they are still in multan and captain ben stokes is back in the side after missing

the last four tests with a hamstring tear. obviously it is frustrating, you can't play, but it helps knowing that i like watching cricket. and when you are injured your focus gets put on to other things. you are trying to get back as quick as you can so you do have those natural distractions in the gym, working and getting things going to build yourself up to a certain level where you can start pushing yourself. and that's all the sport for now. sarah, thank you very much. we are in the home straight. the us election now three weeks away, not a cigarette paper between them. anyone who tells you they know the result of this electrion is lying. our poll tracker has ms harris a whisker ahead in wisconsin, pennsylvania, michigan and nevada while donald trump has a slight advantage in north carolina, georgia and arizona. the national polls are tightening, that sugar rush that followed the vice president's nomination in august is wearing off.

and in the end, probably, it will be the keystone state of pennsylvania that swings it — it always is — i9 electoral college votes up for grabs. and later tonight, both campaigns will be in the state pitching to the undecided — not independents as we might traditionally consider them, but those who are not yet decided whether they will vote or not. in the end it is the casual, unreliable voters that might be the difference—maker. with me here in the studio is ashley davis — republican strategist, former official in the bush administration. she is from pittsburgh pennsylvania she is a fundraiser and long time friend to former presidential candidate nikki haley. i suppose we all want to know whether nikki haley voters will go. fist whether nikki haley voters will no. �* ., ._ go. at the end of the day, first of all. _ go. at the end of the day, first of all, thank - go. at the end of the day, first of all, thank you - go. at the end of the day, first of all, thank you for i first of all, thank you for having me on. it's always fun to talk us politics here. i think at the end of the day, most of them come back to the republican party. i do think that even though there's many that even though there's many that are very angry with what

happened, maybe during the primary, and don't know how the so—called traditional part of the party gets away from donald trump. i really don't think that most of her voters think that most of her voters think that the vice president is the answer. ,, ., that the vice president is the answer. ., . ., answer. so... the rhetoric from donald trump _ answer. so... the rhetoric from donald trump is _ answer. so... the rhetoric from donald trump is getting - answer. so... the rhetoric fromi donald trump is getting darker. let's play what we heard on friday night in colorado, we'll talk off the back. we have the outside enemy — so you can say china, you can say russia, you can say kim jong—un. you can say, but that's not... not going to be fun. if you have a smart president, no problem. it's the enemy from within. all the scum that we have to deal with that hate our country. that's a bigger enemy than china and russia. the enemy within, the some in our country. that's the people who oppose him? what is it that the never trumper �*s, the republicans probably voted for nikki haley see in that? is

republicans probably voted for nikki haley see in that?- nikki haley see in that? is not much different _ nikki haley see in that? is not much different from _ nikki haley see in that? is not much different from when - nikki haley see in that? is not much different from when he l nikki haley see in that? is not i much different from when he ran the first time, every time something was said, everyone was like oh my gosh, that's the nail in the coffin, he's never going to be able to win, but when he's getting out which is getting his voters very excited are the people to cross the border. and that is who he is targeting, he's targeting the gangs that are doing various murders and different issues in new york and wisconsin and michigan. so that's what he's getting out. and it's horrible rhetoric, but people like that he talks that way. this is why a lot of the country still supports him.— a lot of the country still su--orts him. �* , , supports him. but everybody likes him, — supports him. but everybody likes him, not _ supports him. but everybody likes him, not even - supports him. but everybody likes him, not even his - supports him. but everybody. likes him, not even his former chair ofjoint chiefs, in his book he called him a fascist, and getting worse. why are republicans, congressional republicans, congressional republicans prepared to forgive that and they don't take him at his word? because he's talking about putting the national guard, military and the streets to round up his opponents, may

be a mass deportation, the biggest deportation ever. do people not believe him? i think that they believe _ people not believe him? i think that they believe him _ people not believe him? i think that they believe him 50%, - people not believe him? i think that they believe him 50%, but| that they believe him 50%, but i do think he will use the military to get rid of some of the border issues. i would say if you look at our polling in regards to the border and people just angry about the border and there wasn't any control over the first three years, this is probably where i'm more conservative on that issue, there needs to be a new policy in place, i don't know if the military is the answer, but that issue holes at 72% no matter what side of the party you are in. that's why you see kamala harris going towards the middle saying she's going to shut the border and even said she's going to build a wall which is interesting.- she's going to build a wall which is interesting. one of the defining _ which is interesting. one of the defining issues - which is interesting. one of the defining issues in - which is interesting. one of the defining issues in this l the defining issues in this issueis the defining issues in this issue is education. so noncollege educated white voters were for the first time less than 40% of the vote last time around but they are more than 40% in the rust belt states. she's in the north—west

of the state tonight, speaking to people who should be natural democrats but those noncollege white educated voters are now at the trump base. if that's the case, why is she leaving in pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan? if pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan?— pennsylvania, wisconsin, michiaan? ., michigan? if you look at the ollin: , michigan? if you look at the polling, which _ michigan? if you look at the polling, which i— michigan? if you look at the polling, which i walk - michigan? if you look at the | polling, which i walk through that, she's only leading by one or two points. much less than what hillary was leading in 2016 and if you go through all the different polls it depends on... trump was leading in three poles last week, so it goes, our polling is skewed. you think there has been a change though? the you think there has been a change though? you think there has been a chanuaethouh? , , change though? the problem is, when ou change though? the problem is, when you go _ change though? the problem is, when you go down _ change though? the problem is, when you go down further- change though? the problem is, when you go down further in - change though? the problem is, when you go down further in the| when you go down further in the polls, she's losing by 6—8 points, black males and hispanic voters, compared to where biden was in 2020. so that's why you see this week that's why you see this week that the, her campaign is kind of ina that the, her campaign is kind of in a panic mode, which she put out a lot of new policies today on crypto end in regards today on crypto end in regards to small businesses, focusing on black males and i think

she's going to continue, she's actually said before we went on air, she was doing a fox news interview which is unheard of. so there's a panic happening a little bit in her campaign. come on then, give me a winner. who do i think? if it was today, i actually think he wins. but in three weeks there could be so much that happens. nothing sticks to him. three weeks is an age in this electoral cycle, it's like a year. take you very much indeed. we will take a short break, around the world and across the uk, you're watching bbc news. across the uk, you're watching bbc news.

the former mi6 intelligence officer christopher steele is out with a new book — it's his account of his investigations into russian inteference in the 2016 us presidential election. steele's name became forever associated with

the so called "steele dossier", which contained raw intelligence on trump's alleged links to russia, including details of some rather selatious "compromat" that his sources claimed the kremlin was holding as leverage over the us president. at the time it caused a media sensation. but has been largely disparaged in america, despite special councel robert mueller�*s subsequent investigation that discovered "numerous links between the russian government and the trump campaign". the former president sued steele in an english court — but lost because the claim was out of time. the book is called unredacted, russia, trump, and the fight for democracy. i asked steele why he had published it now. there were two main reasons for writing a book now. one was because the threat that is posed by russia and other hostile authoritarian states has not gone away. in fact, it's evolved, it's developed, it's spread, i would argue, to a range of other countries, like china and iran, who weren't in on it to begin with. so that was one of the main reasons.

the second reason ijust felt that because so many others in this history have had their say, have published books and so on, james comey and others, that it was time to actually set the record straight from my point of view, particularly as a lot of lies and disinformation have been put out about my role and our work in 2016. let's talk then about the dossier itself and what it contained. and we should say at the outset that donald trump has strongly and consistently denied the allegations contained within it. but your critics would say that there was no corroborating evidence that emerged in the intervening years. how would you characterise the dossier eight years on? there are probably four main thrusts to the dossier, and it's important to remember that none of these were accepted wisdom at the time. the first was there was a major russian interference campaign into the us election going on. the second was that it was funded and supported and ordered by the leadership — putin. the third was that it was designed notjust to sow doubts about democracy in america,

but deliberately to support one candidate, donald trump, in that particular election. and finally, that there were elements of collusion between people in the trump campaign and people in russia, in the government. and i think all of those main strands stand up well over time. and everything that's come out since really kind of supports that, including things like trump saying in front of zelensky the other day that he had a close relationship with vladimir putin, which is pretty shocking. so i think that the main thrust of it holds up well. no one's arguing that every i was dotted and every t was crossed correctly. that's very rarely the case with intelligence. do you think the problem was with it, that it was viewed in a political way and by journalists and by trade? of course, you are an intelligence officer. new to this, in 2016, you just started your company, orbis. glenn simpson approaches you from this company at fusion gps.

and you over concerns that he had about the people surrounding donald trump. and you go off to investigate. were you in some way naive about what was going on here? i don't think we were naive. i mean, it's important to remember that we were looking at this from the russian point of view down the russian end of the telescope, if you like. we were objective. we were trying to illuminate what was going on, and we found, of course, something much bigger and much more serious than we'd ever expected to. when we did the work. you've done a lot of work with the fbi over the fifa investigation. so you were in some respects a client of theirs. were you surprised at the way they handled it? you mention in the book that they told you because of the hatch act, that — and as federal employees — they couldn't get involved so close to an election. but as we know, two to three weeks before the 2016 election, james comey, a republican, says that he's reinvestigating hillary clinton's missing emails and yet did

what with the dossier that you've given to them? certainly didn't make it public or sound the alarm in the american political system. i think it was badly handled by the fbi, certainly open to charges of hypocrisy in the way that james comey handled it. i don't doubt that he was trying to do his job as best he could, but the result was that this was a lopsided intervention in the election by comey. and i thought, and others did in america, a breach of the hatch act by him. and then fast forward five years. were you given assurances by the bureau that your exchanges with them and then your subsequent exchanges with them when they interviewed you about the dossier would remain secret? absolutely. and not only me, but i understand the british government were given those assurances as well. so the publication, the declassification and publication in 2021, i think the beginning of 2021, towards the end of trump's time in office. of our interview with the fbi in the context of the mueller investigation in 2017, should never have seen the light of day

and was hugely damaging. so you're bound to ask, i suppose, if this is how they treat someone who worked for them, an old colleague, then what about someone who might come to them with information about the us government? as if we know now that some of it might be leaked, that a president could unseal it? what is the risk of that? i mean, why would anybody come forward to the fbi in the future if that's the way intelligence is treated? i think trump is a unique case. this has never happened before. those of us who had worked with the us government for years weren't even aware that a president had the right to declassify any document in the us government. what have you subsequently found out about the way that he's handled intelligence, particularly in respect of what was discovered at mar—a—lago? i don't think we know for sure what was discovered at mar—a—lago, but certainly there's talk of a couple of things that might be relevant to us or to this country. one was naval secrets, and the other was a folder or a file on crossfire hurricane, which was the fbi's investigation into russian intervention in 2016, which apparently

has gone missing and which probably contains information about us and our sources, because we were obviously a significant part of that investigation at the time. so both those things are very worrying. so the british government in 2016 are faced with two possible ways forward. they could either act on the information that you'd supplied, which was concerning, and ask questions in washington of an ally, or they could sit on it to avoid offending donald trump. how did they respond? they initially responded in the way you would expect. when we took the information to charles farr, who was at the time head of thejic, thejoint intelligence committee, his reaction was, as you would expect, that this was to be taken seriously. it was to be investigated and was to be acted upon. and it appears that at some point he was overruled and that actually what then happened was that the whole thing was thrust under the carpet. but you were exposed and your

wife catherine, was exposed. inevitably, yes. in the end. she had worked as a foreign policy adviser and in the foreign office. her career was effectively ended by this event. did you know theresa may? yes. and did she respond directly? no, she... when she became home secretary in 2010, she was given a briefing on russia by me and my colleague chris burrows at a private house and sat there for hours and took note of everything we said. so for her to then a few years later, when she was up at prime minister to take the attitude she did to us was very disappointing. when you say took the attitude she sent, according to your book, she sent cressida dick to see you. what was the message that was passed on? the message was, why on earth had we done this work? why had we put our families at risk in doing this work? we shouldn't have done it and that we only had ourselves to blame, basically. you were very good friends with alexander litvinenko. um, and i'm sure you knew the skripals as well. um, it is the start of

the inquiry into what happened in salisbury today. do you think one day they might come after you? up until this point, it's been unlikely because, as i think i explained in the book, the rules of the game, as it were, the rules of the road in this area have been that putin in particular regards russians who have defected, or he sees them as traitors, as in one category, and western opponents and critics as in another category. the risk is that now russia is at war and we're in a different situation, that those two have been blurred. but obviously skripal and litvinenko, he regarded as traitors, and he's made no secret of the fact that he thinks traitors are scum and should be liquidated. they did send you a message, though. you went on holiday to antigua with catherine? yeah. what did you return to when you went back to the hotel? it was, i think, your week in antigua that week, and there were a number of russian superyachts around where we were staying

in a very secure hotel. and on our last night there, when we were getting ready for dinner, catherine found in her washbag two wedding rings, which didn't belong to us, and there was no explanation for where they'd come from. we feel convinced that they were a calling card from the russian security services, who had been operating off one of those yachts. it's an incredible read because i think what it what it does is it sort of tells the story of how an intelligence officer like you works. the sad fact is that unless people go to the united states, they won't be able to read this book. we've got our copy directly from the united states because it won't be published here. why not? i hope it will be published here. the issue is, as you know, the first amendment rights in the us that make it far more difficult for public figures like donald trump to sue people for libel there. and the problem is we don't have those rights in the uk. hopefully that will change. but at the moment we don't have a publisher who is prepared to indemnify it in the uk. and yet supposedly we have freedom of speech.

we don't have freedom of speech, i'm afraid, in this area, which is clear from the book, if you read it, where we've been sued numerous times in the uk that prevented us speaking in public for many years. you ask why the book took so long to come out? that is one of the reasons — legal jeopardy from spurious court cases and we are where we are. but hopefully we can work to change that. and if the book helps to change that, so much the better. christopher steele, thank you. thank you. we'll maybe pick up that issue with freedom of speech in the next hour. the book is unredacted. if you go to the us you might be able to find a copy. a spacecraft has blasted off from florida on the search for alien life. two, one, ignition and lift off. its destination is europa — the deeply mysterious moon orbiting jupiter which scientists think could have twice as much water as we have here on earth. pretty salty water, but where there is water, there is that potential for life. the clipper won't arrive until 2030 but what it finds,

could change dramatically what we know about life in our solar system. here's dr carly howett to shed some light, astrophysicist at oxford university. good to have you with us. how's it going to get there and how will it operate once it gets there? ~ . . will it operate once it gets there? ., ., ., . there? we had a fantastic morning _ there? we had a fantastic morning here _ there? we had a fantastic morning here in - there? we had a fantastic morning here in florida, i there? we had a fantastic. morning here in florida, we there? we had a fantastic- morning here in florida, we got to watch the rocket take off. everything is nominal, we got single acquisition so it's been a great morning, off to a really good start. of course it was a little bit bumpy, it was supposed to launch last week but hurricane milton had different plans for that, but it was worth the wait for such a spectacular day. figs it was worth the wait for such a spectacular day.— it was worth the wait for such a spectacular day. as big as a basketball — a spectacular day. as big as a basketball court, i— a spectacular day. as big as a basketball court, i read. - a spectacular day. as big as a basketball court, i read. it's. basketball court, i read. it's not looking for life per se, but it will focus as it revolves around the moon on the ingredients that sustain life ingredients that sustain life in the near atmosphere. yes, absolutely. — in the near atmosphere. yes, absolutely, it's _ in the near atmosphere. yes, absolutely, it's sort _ in the near atmosphere. yes, absolutely, it's sort of- in the near atmosphere. yes, absolutely, it's sort of a - absolutely, it's sort of a reconnaissance mission in lots of ways. we think if there is life on europa, it's buried

below the ice sheet so it will below the ice sheet so it will be a hard thing to see directly, but there are be a ha