the ipcc makes a far more conservative statement. they state an upper bound of a abouta meter, about 3 feet, and it's once again an example of where the ipcc arguably has been overly conservative. some as myself have argued that partly that's just due to the culture of science. scientists tend to be reticent.t. we don't like to mamake strong conclusions that e have to withdhdraw at some later time. and there''s also aa cocomponent, i believeve, due to the pressure, ththe outside pressure, , the critics, a very well-funded and well-organized effort to literally discredit the science of climate change sometimes by attempting to discreditit the scientists themselves. i myself have been a victim of that. and in the face of all that pressure and those attacks, i thihink to some extet the ipcc has a actually withdran a a bit, and they've been more guarded, more conservavative, ,e reticent in what they're willing to conclulude than they really should be givenen the evidence. anand arguably, you know, if it is indeed the ipcc's role to advis

keep in mind who the ipcc is. that's intergovernmental panel on climate change. that's the united nations. they're the ones who started all this stuff about 40 years ago. they're the ones whose scientists have been completely discredited. i will always remember when that took place. it was in copenhagen. they had one of their big annual united nation parties over there. they -- i remember back before leaving to go over there, the -- jackson was the obama director of the e.p.a. she knew i was going to go over there and tell the truth to all these people. i asked her the question. this is on public record. i said, now tell me, in the event that i leave town and if you're going to start regulating global warming, you have to first declare that there is an urgency to this thing and you have to use a scientific declaration. what science will you use? she said we're going to use the ipcc, intergovernmental panel on climate change. that's the united nations. as luck would have it, just a matter of days after that the ipcc was totally rejected. i mean, you remember -- ev

of hannah roberts who says did not believe her and they laughed at some of the other victims, the ipcctigating them, rather ridiculously. we will see many cases, probably private prosecutions, which will end up with this man being put through the courts again because the right thing wasn't done at the time. people thought, 0k, he will get a sentence, but it meant that he came out, what, ten years later, nine years later? so many women are reluctant to come forward because they hear about how other women are treated by the authorities. in this case, i had my drinks spiked last year. last year? i was drinks spiked last year. last year? iwas in drinks spiked last year. last year? i was in the house of commons, in a bar, i reported it at the time but no action was taken. the issue is, the sense afterwards of not knowing what happened to you is very distressing, i was very lucky, the police were very good with me, but in this case, to then be in a very vulnerable position and then report something and then the laughter effectively is just awful. —— and then be laughed at effectively. what i

there has been a history of very, very poor investigation by the police, it has been subject to an ipccsed by women who thought they had been drugged and possibly sexually assaulted or raped. they did take those cases to trial that they felt had enough evidence to go to trial, they got a successful conviction, but when all these other women came forward, we don't really know what happened then about the decision not to bring a new trial, so big questions today for the metropolitan police, full sussex police because some of the offences were in brighton, and also for the crown prosecution service. why did this not get to another trial? if warboys had been convicted on sufficient evidence in other cases, there is no way you would be released after less than ten years because there would be another sentence for him to serve, be another sentence for him to serve, so be another sentence for him to serve, so that is another big area of questions. as you say, big questions for policing and justice. is there a nyway policing and justice. is there anyway this parole board decision can be overtur

but the police's handling of the ipcc report into its failings.e, people go... they come to work as police officers every money to keep people safe. but it is a nonsense that you can have a system whereby individuals who are found by official reports to have been guilty of, in one case of gross incompetence, misconduct, then seve demoted —— seve demoted, rather than being told they cannot work in the police again. —— simply demoted. then they are able to retire and avoid all accountability. the home secretary as to intervene, let us look of the facts and have an independent enquiry into this, but the home secretary must intervene to restore confidence in this police force and in police forces across the country. because this is not by any means the first time this kind of retirement option, police seeming to close ranks, has happened. we will be that the matter. john woodcock, think you very much. —— we will leave it there. the headlines on bbc news: thousands of jobs thousands ofjobs are risks after the collapse of pirelli. a coroner has ruled th