wow, you get to watch all your favorite stuff. it's to die for. now you won't miss a thing. this is the way. the xfinity 10g network. made for streaming. ♪ ♪ narrator: funding for this presentation of this program is provided by... narrator: pediatric surgeon. volunteer. topiary artist. a raymond james financial advisor tailors advice to help you live your life. life well planned.

narrator: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation; pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. announcer: and now, "bbc news". >> hello. i'm christian fraser, and this is "the context." >> i am never had any complaints . >> these are very hard allegations for the police to investigate and for potential victims to have to deal with. but what we do have now is the start of a police investigation. >> think if there was an independent person, say an organization like bbc, within the larger companies. that would be really good.

if we had a network of those people, perhaps they could compare notes. ♪ christian: the metropolitan police open an investigation into actor russell brand over an alleged sexual assault in london and 2003. the complaint was made this morning following weekend reports into his treatment of women. as of yet, no charges. also tonight, five iranian americans on their way home after the white house sanctioned a payment of 6 billion euros to the regime in tehran. we will dig deeper into how that deal was broken. and 150 world leaders in new york for a summit on development. why is the u.n. missing alits crucial targets?

good evening. the metropolitan police say they have received an allegation of sexual assault that has been made against the comedian and actor rush holt brand -- russell brand. they are in contact with the woman who has made the claim and are supporting it. it follows the publication of investigations into alleged sexual offenses this weekend, all of which russell brand denies. a separate to the police inquiry, the bbc and channel 4 said they are opening their own internal investigations. the times and sunday times, who first ran the story said more women have come forward since they first reported. one woman says she was just 16 when she had a relationship with him. she told radio 4 this morning that a bbc chauffeur driven car had picked her up at school and taken her to the comedian's home. she is being referred to as alice and the words have been voiced by an actor. >> he knew before we ever went on our first date. when we met initially and he

took my number and asked me out on a date, he hadn't asked me, but he did know. so i texted him pryor because he said he knew i was stalling to agreeing on a date to him and he said, why are you? what is going on? why don't you want to go out with me? i said, because of got something to tell you. i said, i'm 16. and he just replied saying, ok, so we are 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 am in my 30's, looking at 16-year-olds, i can't imagine finding them sexually attractive. i can't even imagine thinking of them as that, a potential mate in any way. it seems the only feelings i have towards them are maternal, protective feelings. you 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? although it is technically legal, the power imbalance, which is what you are referring to there, is huge in this. >> yeah. and just because he was telling me that i am a very intelligent woman, i am mature, being intelligent doesn't mean you are not naive and you are not vulnerable and that you don't have the life experiences, and your brain isn't fully developed. christian: russell brandt's platform now is mainly online, where he presents himself as a wellness guru. he has 6 million followers on youtube, 4 million followers on instagram. this weekend, he used that platform to maintain his innocence. >> the allegations pertain to a time when i was working in the mainstream, when i was in the newspapers all the time. as i have written out about, i was very promiscuous.

during that time of promiscuity, the relationships i had grabs the always consensual. what i seriously refute are these very serious criminal allegations. ristian: nonetheless, russell brand's talent agency terminated all professional ties with him. tonight, the theatre royal in windsor said it was canceling his tuesday night performance. let's speak to professor jonathan shalit. he is one of the biggest talent managers in the country. also with us, lucia osborne crowley, who is herself a rape survivor, although i should stress nothing to do with this case, and she reports on the lot regarding celebrity cases like this one. welcome to you both. professor, can i start with you? we must be careful with this because it is for the police to decide whether there has been any criminality here 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 example

on air at the height of his fame? >> nothing short of horrific, apparent. i am very conscious i'm interviewing alongside a rate survivor -- rape survivor. i can only imagine the mental anguish one must be feeling when they look back and hear you talking about how she is a grown woman, she understands what she thought she knew she didn't know. the truth is, though, the people in power should also be held to account. people can behave in a certain way if they are not outed, especially in the public eye. this is reminiscent of other people in the past who have been in power. i remember michael jackson. the people around him empowered the behavior they did. that is what we are talking

about now. we are talking about people, and from some years ago, by the way. it is very important that the buses the bbc today the buses of channel 4 today -- the boss es of channel4 today have empowered this. it is quite staggering that people, mainly people with children, would have allowed this kind of behavior. i don't know what to say. christian: i think on that point, jonathan, there is a distinction, is there not, between criminality, which has to be decided, and 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 what he is going to do to women, why did that not set any alarm bells ringing? >> the people who were there -- there was the example where him and jimmy sabo joked about

having girls over. watching the clip of big brother where he took down his trousers and sat on a girl's lap. you wonder what kind of people were producing these shows that they thought this was ok. it is beyond staggering. christian: has it changed? has it changed post me too? was at the issue that it was on the line but we turned a blind eye to it? >> absolutely. anybody who wants to say i am wrong, i take to task. television -- in fact, the workplace is very different today. what was acceptable back then is no longer acceptable. that is not to say -- in the workplace, the media entertainment business, this behaor should not be tolerated. if it happened, that person should be fired immediately. it happens continually in all industries.

but it is not tolerated now. i will spoke to my -- you will spoke to my co-interviewee and a second who went through a horrible experience and will talk from that experience, but now that would not happen the same way. you would not have a television station allowing that kind of behavior. christian: i am interested. yet again, this was an open secret. we are talking about a kind of selective morality within broadcasting when it comes to the highest paid talent. why does this keep reoccurring? let me bring in lucia. >> your point is exactly right. we have seen again and again that these people have been hiding in plain sight for a very long time. and that speaks to the culture of the media industry, the

television industry, and celeity in general. when we look back on it now, and i completely agree with you that i think this has changed post me too. when we look at the things that were hiding in plain sight, we wonder how we let these things be broadcast because now we live in a world where people are starting to be held to account. but another part of the is that these allegations take so long to be reported, to come forward. i report on me to allegations all the time, and is so much harder than people think it is. christian: you say that people are held to account, but i have read some of the things you have written about my and you say we are woefully ill-equipped in these types of cases. why is that the case? >> yes, yes. and i do think we are still woefully ill-equipped to deal

with these kinds of cases, and there are a number of reasons for that. one is that we have an incredibly insidious culture of victim blaming, which still happens in our courtrooms. i am a crtroom reporter, so i spend all day every day in the court, and i see the way victims are cross-examined about their own behavior. i see the way victims are put on trial or made to feel like they are on trial instead of their perpetrators. it is because of that that victims are so afraid to come forward, because we still have a system that punishes victims who do come forward. either through the trial process or through things like nondisclosure agreements or threats of defamation. we have heard today that russell brand made threats of legal action against one of the accusers.

the law can be weaponized by the wealthy and the powerful through civil actions like defamation to try and silence victims. christian: 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 behavior in perpetuity? >> absolutely they are. not in every case, of course, but they are a very powerful tool. i have spoken to survivors of very high-profile people who have now been convicted about the nda's they signed decades ago. these are things that have been put place years and years ago to make sure that nobody ever

speaks out. and the thing is, an nda is a contract, so it is covered by the law of contract, and the love contract tells us if two people make an agreement, the court should uphold that agreement. but what that doesn't take into account, as we discussed, is the imbalance of power in the situation. for example, if you've got a person like harvey weinstein and his legal team asking a very young person to sign a nda, that is not two equal partners signing a contract. we have seen clauses in those nda's that are incredibly unfair, given that on balance of power -- that in balance of power. you can't contract out of reporting a crime to the police. but if a person signing nda, a

vulnerable person, doesn't have the legal advice, and legal advice is very expensive, if they don't have the legal advice to say, this clause is not fair and you shouldn't be signing this, then people will sign what they are asked to sign because of that in balance of power when we are talking about wealth and celebrity. and the thing about the law is it is controlled by wealth in our current system, and that makes it easily weaponized by these people. christian: there is a power dynamic, unquestionably, jonathan. in terms of this culture of celebrity power and reaffirming that power, it is not only the broadcasters that are to blame. i heard davey yellen, the former editor of "the son," on the radio -- "the sun," on e radio. he titled it, " russell brand: shagger of the year."

that culture, she is our guy, isn't -- he is our guy, isn't that the demeaning attitude causing these problems? >> absolutely. if you remember talking to his former newspaper tt many years ago, that awful leaked tape of when king charles made a joke and everybody laughed about it and thought it was funny, but the reality is it was an intrusion of privacy about the king, and he was very dignified about it. but the public also support it. it is not always fair just to blame the broadcaster because the public love it. but we are talking in the past. that is very important. this is about the law and it is expensive and people cannot take the law on. that is absolutely right. that is about the legal process. that is all walks of industry, not just television and entertainment. the truth is, historically --

not so much now -- the power of the star, the power of the presenter that everyone looks up to, and i guess to a certain extent, to be the star of the show you have massive charisma, but the star of the show could not now behave in this way. the star of the show stepped out of line of what was morally acceptable. it happened recently. things have changed. what russell brand did back then wouldn't happen now. christian: i think the safeguarding is much tighter than it was. good to talk to you. thank you for coming on the program both. >> thank you for having me. christian: around the world and across the u.k., this is bbc news. let's take a look at the other stories making news in the u.k. detectives believe they have discovered the remains of a couple whose daughter has been charged with their murder. essex police were called to an address in pump till transferred after virginia macola 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 a virus. while hospital numbers are up, intensive care admissions are low. the rollout is being brought forward as a precaution against the hihighly mutated variant. the cost of renting a home in the u.k. rose by 12%. that is according to the estate agency hamptons. the group says it is the highest rise since they started surveying in 2014. the uptick in the past 12 months is greater than the increase it experienced over the four years to 2019. you are 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 held irani and passports, were flown out of delhi to qatar. their release was dependent on the transfer of $6 billion in iranian funds, money that iran earned selling oil to south korea. the funds, which had long been held in south korean currency, were transferred from seoul to swiss banks, then converted into euros before being wired to qatari banks. u.s. secretary of state antony blinken spoke to the prisoners after they were released. here is what he said. >> it was for them, for me, an emotional conversation. it is easy in the work we do every day sometimes to get lost in the distractions of foreign policy and relations with other countries. and forgetting the human element

that is at the heart of everything we do. but today, their freedom, the freedom of these americans for so long imprisoned and detained in iran, means some pretty basic things. it means husbands and wives, fathers and children, grandparents can hug each other again, can see each other again, can be with each other again. christian: with me in the studio is ambassador joel raven. also with us, aaron david miller. welcome to y both. maybe i could start with you, aaron miller. what do you know about the negotiation and how this financial arrangement was

organized? who was it who was the broker? >> deliberations are like an iceberg. one quarter above the waterline, three quarters below. but negotiations have been emerging for at least a year and a half. the negotiation of five americans in exchange for five iranian nationals in exchange for roughly $67 million, not in frozen assets, but iranian assets in south korean banks, would be deposited under the u.s. treasury of supervision to qatari thbank, assuming they make legitimate claims for services that are humanitarian in nature. i think it is frankly part of a broader set of indirect discussions and negotiations that the united states has been having with iranian officials in

an effort to "de-escalate" a clearly fraught situation between the united states and ir's nuclear program. it is a peace, frankly. -- it is a piece, frankly. there have been deals in iran. frankly, if you wanted to free five unjustly imprisoned americans, a price is going to have to be paid. i think this administration did the right thing. the individual represents the universe of human possibility, bringing them home. but we should not be under illusions. christian: let me speak to ambassad raven. mr. miller thinks the administration and the grand scheme of things to the right thing to bring americans home. the question is, what is that money going to be used for? >> the money is fungible. the administration's claim and the iranian regime's claim will

be it can only be used for humanitarian purposes. but it will free up resources that can be used for any purpose by the iranian regime elsewhere, such as support of its militant groups. we should not be distracted by that. i agree with aaron that i think the biden administration is engaged in a broader de-escalation or detente deal or moving toward a deal with the iranian regime, which is extremely unwise because detente or de-escalation without a credible deterrent or credible pressure amounts to appeasement. this is the capital -- a capital that knows very well what happens of a policy of appeasement. >> mean the iranian hostages? >> not just the hostages. i am talking about a iranian regime engaged in low-level complex against us, our allies

in the region, and to engage in this kd of resourcing of the iran regime, that context is counterproductive. christian: let your administration walked away from the jcpoa, the nuclear deal, because iran was funding a missiles program. 6 billion euross money on top of what they already have. it is money they don't necessarily have to put into food and medicine. how politically will this play back at home in an election season? >> it will not play well. appeasement of the regime is an unpopular thing with t american electorate. the reason the trump administration, president trump, walked away from the jcpoa is because it has a fatal internal contradiction, which is that it puts your most effective non-war tool, economic sanctions, behind glass, and it says you can only break the glass for nuclear violations. meanwhile, it leaves the regime free to use lebanese hezbollah

or ballistic missiles to wreak havoc around the world, as well as its terrorist proxies to conduct attacks, murder, plots, in the united states and elsewhere. president trump said, you can't leave me with no option between war and capitulation. christian: aaron miller, i listened to richard radcliffe today, the husband of a woman who came home last year, and he is concerned that we are playing to the hand of the iranians. that it is hostage diplomacy. it could mutate to execution diplomacy. two foreign citizens have been killed this year. how concerned are you that this kind of arrangement will fuel further hostagetaking? >> i don't think the iranians need additional incentives, frankly, to take americans or other nationals. remember, there are two permanent residents in the united states who are still imprisoned. the iranian regime will act against their own citizens and dual nationals and american

citizens. it is a game. it is a rule game. -- it is a cruel game. in this respect, getting our people home i think is warranted. i would comment on one thing he said. this partially right in the fact that we have a strategic problem with iran and not a strategic solution. therein lies the dilemma. i am not sure anyone could devise the kind of approach that is required. maximum pressure didn't work. some could argue it was the trumpet ministry should -- the trump administration policy. it is a nasty regime brushing -- oppressing its own citizens. we nuclear weapons thresholds, all the ingredients required

to acquire a nuclear weapon. we don't have a solution to that problem. that i think is the challenge. christian: aaron miller, ambassador raven, thank you for coming into thstudio. narrator: funding for this presentation of this program is provided by... narrator: financial services firm, raymond james. narrator: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation; pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ narrator: funding for this presentation of this program is provided by... narrator: pediatric surgeon. volunteer. topiary artist. a raymond james financial advisor tailors advice to help you live your life. life well planned.