and careful to dispel any suspicion of cover—up, it'll all be streamed live. we'll look at the hopes and fears people hold of the inquiry shortly, but we know many people think austerity was, at root, to blame. our policy editor chris cook looks now at what we already know, including the startling fact that using combustible cladding on the building, barely saved any money at all. life in west london continues around the dark shell of grenfell tower. it's become a monument not just to its own victims, but to social injustice, to a widening wealth gap, and to the consequences of national political decisions. the tragedy of grenfell tower has exposed the disastrous effects of austerity. the public inquiry and criminal investigations have kept key individuals from speaking on camera. but we've pieced together the fullest account so far of how grenfell ended up in flames.
one of the themes that emerged in the aftermath of the grenfell tower fire was the link between the disaster and austerity. that's an idea that's particularly galling, given just how rich the royal borough of kensington and chelsea actually is. i'm here in elm park gardens, which is a road about three miles south from grenfell tower, on the other side of the borough. the average property price here is £1.8 million. but it's actually here that the real story of the grenfell fire begins. you see, on this road, the council sold off a load of its property, including some of these basement flats. they took £6 million from those sales, they added in £3 million from elsewhere, and they put that £9 million or so budget towards renovating and refurbishing grenfell tower.
that refurbishment was supposed to make it a nicer, warmer place to live. grenfell was selected by the borough and kctmo, its tenant management organisation, to complete the renovation of buildings in this corner of the borough. they already had a new academy and a new leisure centre. most of the work would be cladding the building. the style of cladding used at grenfell tower is known as rainscreen cladding. what that means is they put up a layer of insulation on the outside wall of the tower, and then they protected it with an outer skin. in this case, it was aluminium panels. at grenfell tower, the type of insulation that they used was stuff like this. it's a combustible plastic foam. what that means is, to use it safely, you have to box this stuff in with fireproof material so that flames can't get to the insulation
and, if they do get to it, so that fire can't spread. what that means is that if you're using this insulation you have to have fireproof outer panels. but at grenfell tower, they didn't. they used aluminium panels that have a plastic polyethylene core, flammable panels — a critical mistake. that type of aluminium cladding has been found on plenty of other high—rises. this is the chilcots estate in the london borough of camden. it plays a small but important role in the grenfell tower story. you see, ryden, the developer, brought people from the kctmo here to see what you could do to high—rises with cladding. these camden towers also use polyethylene core aluminium panels. but, unlike grenfell, the insulation underneath is completely fireproof and, unlike grenfell, the camden cladding was installed at a time when these sorts of panels were relatively novel. in the years between the chilcots
renovation in 2006 and the start of the grenfell works, concerns started to arise about polyethylene core panels. they were key factors in fires at the television cultural centre in beijing, at the apartment building in shanghai, at the saif belhasa in dubai, the tamweel tower in dubai, and the mermoz tower in france. it was known in the industry that these panels were a problem. in fact, by the time grenfell tower was being designed, the problems with polyethylene core cladding had become so clear that fire resistant alternatives had already been developed and brought to market specifically for buildings like grenfell. furthermore, there was a major fire in melbourne in late 2014. that came after they had settled
on polyethylene core cladding for grenfell, but before work had started on the site. there was no shortage of warnings. so, were they forced into this design by their budget? no. it's been revealed previously that in 2014 they changed the design from using noncombustible cladding to combustible cladding, saving £300,000. but newsnight has estimates from builders indicating they could still probably have saved £240,000 and had fire—safe cladding that looked very similar to what went up. that's because the bulk of the saving came from just switching to a cheaper brand of panels. changing to combustible cladding saved them just a further £60,000. £60,000 in a £9 million budget. that was easily affordable. for example, newsnight has seen quotes from the developer at the time which showed they believed they could
save about £60,000 just by hanging the cladding on the building in a slightly different pattern. one major question for the inquiry would be why it is that the council's building control officers signed the works off. to pass a tall building with combustible insulation on it they would need to be convinced that the proposed design boxes the insulation in safely, ideally, with a test of the design in a fire lab. but we know no such test took place. they could also pass it as safe using engineers‘ reports based on previous test results for similar cladding combinations. but all of the accredited fire and engineering companies have denied providing such a report. the borough is refusing to release the relevant documents on this. so, we still don't know why it is that two very experienced building control officers signed grenfell off as safe. whatever the rationale, it was a catastrophic error.
the inquiry will need to find out why it was made. maybe austerity played a role in the inspector's workload? austerity surely mattered in the council's treatment of residents before the fire, and after. but remember, the council chose to spend money on grenfell tower. and the building could have been safely fitted out for the budget it was given. chris cook, there. and chris is with me now. i said the system is on trial, to some extent, and whitehall must be bracing itself for this? it absolutely is. i think there has been a lot of discussion about the inquiry, in terms of what it will mean for kensington and chelsea, for the conservative party at kensington and chelsea, for the local residents and the building industry. the extent to which this inquiry is going to start looking into what policy has been on building safety, on social housing, it is a real minefield. remember, they don'tjust have to look at recent years, they are going to look into it
deeply, into what the department of local government and communities has done for a while and we don't know where the inquiry will end up. let's look ahead to the inquiry now. i'm joined by ismet rawat who is the co—founder of bme lawyers four grenfell, a campaign group wanting to represent the victims and families of grenfell tower at the inquiry. but i'd like to start with shah aghlani, who lost his mother and aunt in the fire. they lived on the 18th floor, but went up to the 23rd floor that night. shah, you had the unbearable experience of talking to her on the as she succumbed to the smoke. have you had any peace since that night?
the nightmare continues, as it was like the first night. for me, the end hasn't even begun yet. we are desperately seeking the beginning of an end. hopefully, this inquiry will start this beginning of an end. i know a lot more people i know have lost their relatives, and also have not had closure in any way. if anything, the wound is still open and deep. we are desperately seeking answers. are you hopeful that the inquiry will get you some of those answers? there was quite a bit of suspicion amongst the families, wasn't there, at the beginning? we have a lot of suspicion at the moment. but we cannot let go of hope. hope is all we have. we are looking out to kind of work with the judge. hopefully bring closure to this, for our own sake. but the inquiry has
to be transparent. it has to be decisive. as they say, deception is the enemy of trust. for it to gain our trust, there should be no deception of any kind. you are going to go tomorrow, to the first session? yes, i will. we are hoping to be able to assist the inquiry. to be able to kind of participate and take proactive actions. something inside us needs to close this horrible chapter. it's a matter of justice for those who died as well?
it is. i lost my mother and my aunt. i think i owe it to every single person that died in that tower to bring justice. we will not remain quiet. we will speak out when needed and we will withdraw our support if we see the inquiry is going in the wrong direction. but we will give the judge the benefit and we hope him all the best. you will see how it goes? ismet, how typical is shah's reaction, of the tenants and families who have met? well, first of all, my deepest sympathies to you and your family. the suspicion has been there from the outset.
people have felt it was going to be a whitewash from the outset. subsequent events have not reassured them, i'm afraid. what is your view, as a lawyer? looking at this, the idea that there could be a major cover—up, in front of so many of us, do you believe that is possible and do you think the judge could cover something up, hide something or pull a fast one? i don't think the judge will cover something up or pull a fast one. i don't think he will do that. the problem is, from the point this incident happened, you can bet your bottom dollar that people in the local council were looking at their documents, they were going through everything. so there was a window when documents could have been hidden, destroyed etc. people are very suspicious because you've got things like the former chief executive is still on a 6—figure salary, despite having resigned. you've got the head of the press team at the public inquiry now, suddenly, working for the borough.
so, tenants, residents, survivors, they are seeing all of these things. you are worried about the level of representation, so your group have said that you want to be core participants on the behalf of the family? yes, they receive disclosure prior to the enquiry and can make representations. they can make opening and closing statements. a lot of these families are represented by solicitors and they are there to represent their clients. a lot of the families are still not represented. there is a collective voice, legal voice, for the families as a whole? no, there is justice for grenfell who have done a lot of work, grenfell legal support, but we are the only voluntary legal organisation. and briefly, shah,
chris cook's report says that they did not save money with this cladding, how does that make you feel? as a whole, this weakening and lengthening chain of responsibility for upholding and enforcing regulations was the responsibility of people who were in charge. that should be examined, and people who were in charge should be brought to account. whether they saved money, or not. ‘s that is the purpose of the enquiry. we will see how it progresses. ismet and shah, thank you. we learnt today that the prime minister will give a speech about brexit next friday.
it's the one that has been keenly anticipated. what do we know about this speech? if anyone can tell us, nick watt can. we've been waiting for this speech. it has been talked about, what do we know? it was announced the speech will take place in florence and is the most significant speech theresa may has made since lancaster house injanuary which set out the framework of the government policy. essentially what the prime minister is doing, she will show some love for europe by going to what number 10 is describing as the historic heart of europe. really, what she is doing by going to the birthplace of the renaissance is to illustrate her point that the uk is leaving the eu but it is not leaving europe. what she wants to do in this speech is show how the uk wants to form what she is calling a deep and special partnership with europe, and by doing that maybe you can unlock change, change the atmosphere in these brexit talks that are not going anywhere.
is there any substance? she will make clear that the transition period, the implementation phase, will not be used to achieve membership through the back door but there has been a shift in tone. she may illustrate the point by saying we will not stay in the european economic area, there has been talk of that but she has to illustrate what david davis and philip hammond have been saying, which is that we will have a relationship that is close to membership in transition period. nick, thank you. this week, we've been looking back at the aftermath of the northern rock crisis, which erupted ten years ago. we've focused on what went wrong at that particular bank, and we've looked at banking in general. but one thing history will say about the financial crisis is that it had ramifications well beyond banking and finance. it seemed to mark a once—in—a—lifetime turning point in economics, politics and society. we'll talk to lord mervyn king about that shortly.
but quite a few people — including alistair darling on this programme — have been saying that without northern rock, brexit would never have happened. so how do you trace a line from the run on that bank, to events more recently? ladies and gentlemen, this is your stewardess speaking. we regret any inconvenience the sudden cabin movement might have caused. this is due to periodic air pockets we encounter. there's no reason to become alarmed and we hope you enjoy the rest of your flight. by the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane? that vintage comedy scene captured a theme that's dominated public life ever since northern rock. northern rock is carrying on business in the normal way, and it can do that because we've got a stable banking system. from the moment the run on northern rock
started, one thing was clear. the authorities had lost the trust of the public. if they are not in trouble, why are they having to borrow from the government? nobody's given an absolute guarantee that the money is safe in this bank. as the crisis went from bad to worse through the next year and beyond, there was every reason to question the ability of the authorities to handle things. but the seed of a second important form of distrust emerged too. the public bailed out the banks, while many bankers kept their renumeration. fred goodwin's pension was the best example. sir fred should not be counting on being £650,000 a year better off as a result of this because it's not going to happen. well, he did give some back, but kept hundreds of thousands a year — and a few million quid on top.
it was explained that by the rules that have made commercial britain in the city the success that it was, you couldn't take away the whole of fred goodwin's pension once it had been promised to him. now tell that to the workers in britain who were witnessing a bonfire of their own final salary pension schemes at about the same time. aah, that was different, it was explained. those were informal promises that were broken. you are allowed to break those. sir fred, though, had formal contractual undertakings. i think to the public, stripping sir fred of his knighthood, rather than taking away his pension, didn't quite seem the same... it became impossible for the public not to spot a pattern. especially when the mps expenses scandal came along. who claimed for the fitting of two tiled cartons... cartoons?
0oh, two cartoons to their bathroom. was it liam byrne, lembit 0pik, or ken clarke? lembit 0pik. any ideas, ken? i've got two tiled cartoons in my bathroom of my second home... i had somebody in, and he put it on the bill, did he? the frame through which to view expenses had already been constructed by the financial crisis. people at the top on the take. the public, perhaps unsurprisingly, began to think everybody rich or powerful is in it for themselves. for a full decade before the crisis, it had become clear that london was pulling away from the rest of the country. post—crisis, half the cranes in the country were in london, we were told. the city was doing fine.
oh, and the olympics was helping nicely, thank you. a celebrated global multicultural hub. everyone loved the olympic games, but was there a subliminal effect on the national psyche? away from the hotspots of london and a handful of other big cities, there was, of course, a post—industrial britain. in the outskirts of the big cities, in secondary cities and northern towns. and the fact that the crisis didn't inject a new sense of economic purpose in these places. there was no new economic model on the table. no investment surge. all that can only have increased resentment. the gap between london and the rest of the country may have been tolerated when it was working for everybody. but not any more. it became possible to discern a new national divide. london and the big cities versus the rest. how are you, are you all right? i'm nigel.
this is the man who talks sense! no surprise that against that backdrop, political outsiders could flourish. there was notjust no trust in the old politics, but suspicion it was positively self—serving. and the populist forces were most powerful outside london and the big cities. i was never even intending to run for local council. but itjust seemed to me that there was something going so badly wrong with our entire political class. the populist right could flourish with its anti—elite message. the populist left could flourish, with its anti—elite message. labour's john mcdonnell was caught saying the left had predicted the financial crisis all along. i'm honest, i'm a marxist. you know? this is a classic crisis of the economy. a capitalist crisis. i've been waiting for this for a generation! and no prize for guessing which piece of the
political spectrum suffered most... the one that was on watch when the financial crisis hit. the political centre. it was clear during the labour leadership election that the centrists were struggling to channel the anger that so many people were feeling. i want all our children to have the best chance in life, and i want everyone who shares our values to create a fairer, stronger, less divided britain to feel that your home is with labour. and the rest is history. the centre ground in politics struggling to keep up with volatile public opinion. a public more willing to entertain radical ideas than ever before, whether that is brexit, scottish independence orjeremy corbyn. voting for brexit against the wishes of london and the old political establishment. can you trace all of that back to northern rock? yes, i think you can. the only surprise is that the revolution has been so mild...
the crash was a global phenomenon. the pattern of disruption in this country was evident elsewhere. and everywhere, it took its time to have an effect. but the crash was neverjust an ordinary bad recession... it was a shock to the core of the system. 0n the line from new york, is lord king — mervyn king, governor of the bank of england when the crash hit. a very good evening to you, do you think we can trace a line from northern rock over to the, if you like, the popular insurgency british politics and the developments, parallel developments in other countries, including the one that you are sitting in? up to a point. the financial crisis was, indeed, the key event. i think you can draw a line from the financial crisis to the recent voting patterns around the industrialised world. but i do not think you can bet it on northern rock. even if northern rock hadn't even existed and had failed, we would still have had a global
financial crisis in 2008. fair point. one of the things i think maybe public extremely angry, and anger is still present, is the sense that a lot of bankers got away with it. i know that you are not a believer in sending bankers to jail. but it sticks in the throat that so many people make money from activity that was socially useless and they kept the money when it was obvious they damaged the institutions they were working for. was there anything they could do? i think so, some bankers have gone to jailfor individual criminal acts and it is difficult to tear up acts that are valid in law but the crucial thing is to investigate very carefully what happened, and reflect on it, and make sure that we create a system that will not fail in a way that the whole system failed in 2007-8.
isn't that just a little bit limp as a reaction? the chief executive of the lehman brothers took home something like half $1 billion in the decade before the bank that he was running ran into the ground. half a billion dollars. it is serious money. standing behind the line that the law of contract, we had to respect that, there is nothing we can do... i wonder why that doesn't explain why people are so mad? i think the right lesson from that is to make sure that such contracts cannot be written in future. i know the regulators in the uk, the financial conduct authority, they are taking serious steps to ensure that bankers can be held personally responsible for what happens which will feed through to the ability to take money out of the bank. but to say that you tear up contracts retrospectively is not a sensible way in which to
base a market can be. —— economy. we all lose in future on that basis but those things were clearly wrong. it is up to individual regulators to do what they can. they need to be given powers to prevent that kind of thing happening and they were not giving up those powers before the crisis. but you know and you understand why people, one decade after, say that they have suffered for a decade, they have not had a pay rise. as a taxpayer i helped to bed out these institutions. these people walked off richer than any of us could dream of being? i fully understand and share in that anger. it is justified and as you said just now, i'm surprised that anger has not been greater during the period since the crisis but it is notjust one or two individuals. is a mistake to focus on that.
the entire banking system was bailed out and i put forward proposals for this, i want to ensure that the banks have to pay an insurance every year, when there isn't a crisis, to give them access to a credit line from the central bank when there is a crisis. so that people will feel that they have paid for it in advance and they are then entitled to borrow from the central bank. after all, the real basis for anger, i think, is notjust the individuals that everyone was told in the 20 or 25 years before the crisis that if we accepted the discipline of a market economy and accept that we may lose our jobs, small businesses may disappear and the government wouldn't intervene, that was how to have a healthy market economy with rising business standards and those at the forefront of conveying the message were in the financial sector. when they got into financial trouble, what happened ? we bailed them out. that's the source of the anger and we need a system in place where that will not
happen in future. where you one of those people telling the public that we have this market system economy and it works? people may feel that there is some anger, and notjust the bankers but the people in charge of the system, like yourself or alistair darling who we had on the programme the other day. they may feel that. all i can do is point to what we said and did at the time, what i have been arguing very forcefully for, from the day that northern rock failed, when i went before the treasury committee, until today, i put forward similar proposals for making sure we never have to go through this again. we have implemented some of them, but not all of them. michael gove famously said we have had enough of experts. was it not the financial crash that made people think we have had enough of experts, people didn't see it coming and when it did come they did not handle it in particularly grand style. i think the concern about experts does not date back to the financial crisis.
there were serious and very important debates immediately after the crisis as to how we should reform our banking system. we had a great deal of very good legislation put in place. i think the concern about experts during the referendum on membership of the european union had much more to do with the nature of the campaign that both sides run, which, frankly, treated the public with a good deal of disdain, and as if they were rather stupid. we didn't get the quality of arguments in the european union referendum campaign that we did actually have about the future of banking after the financial crisis. one of the consequences, as we have been saying, of the financial crash is the rise of populist forces on the left and the right. do you see anything out of, say, let's take the left because it is much bigger in this country, jeremy corbyn and his economics, do you see anything in that which will address, if you like, constructively address, the
anger and annoyance of public and what a decade ago? no, i think the problems are very much deeper. i am not sure anyone country will find it easy to find a route out of the problems that we face. i think we will need more international cooperation. the problems go back before the financial crisis, to the enormous influx of people working in manufacturing around the world, to the enormous amount of savings that were placed in the world economy, to the reduction of interest rates, which was the main factor pushing up the prices of houses and assets of all kinds. which led to the expansion of the banking system and its ultimate collapse.
so, i think these are deeperfactors. i don't think anyone country will find a simple solution and i don't think that the solutions that we have seen are actually likely to bring about a resolution of these problems. brexit, you have taken a fairly positive view, a warm view towards brexit and i think most economists have. how do you think the negotiations are going? do one of those that said we could cope with a hard brexit, that was the government line. how does it look like it is going now? what i actually said was, in the long run, i didn't think the economic consequences would be very different if we left and if we stayed in, in the same way as i don't think thatjoining transformed the british economy. i also said that if you're going to entering negotiation it is actually very important to make sure the other side of the table knows that you have a fallback position that you are capable of delivering. that requires you to make clear,
publicly, what the fallback position is. we have been waiting for over a year now. i must say i am not terribly impressed by how much of that fallback position has actually been stated, been implemented, and whether it is actually being managed properly within the civil service and the government. i don't think this is a statement about the potential impact of brexit. but i don't think the negotiations are going in the way that we might hope. i think that you need a separate team who are responsible for ensuring that if the negotiations do break down in some way, and we can't control that, that depends on the other side and we have no influence on that, we are capable of saying that if you don't want an agreement, we are capable of leaving and trading with you and video terms. it is not our first preference but we can do it. we need a team of people that are capable of delivering that. lord king, thank you very much indeed.
ringo starr has his 19th album out on friday — give more love, a title very well aligned with his twitter feed, which repeatedly features the words "peace and love" and avoids the angry shouting that is such a hallmark of many other people's social media. but is he is as mellow about the way his talents were appreciated as part of the most famous band in the world? and what does he make of the old country? on a visit to london from his home in los angeles, ringo starr has been talking to stephen smith. # every time i see your face # it reminds me of the places we used to go. # but all i've got is a photograph... out from behind his drum kit, it's ringo starr performing his song photograph, a version of which appears on his new album. the records an all—starjam with ringo's talented and famous mates. a certain p mccartney appears, doesn't he? well, he was in town. i wanted him for show me the way. i heard he was coming in, so i called him. because we still hook up,
we still have dinner if we're in the same town. i felt he'd be the perfect bass man for this track. yes, i imagine you don't audition people and eventually get to paul mccartney, do you? no, no—one on that record did i audition. they all know what to do. and then he heard on the road again and he wanted to play on that. so we said fine. # we're on the road again! you must be one of the oldest, established rhythm sections in rock and roll. we are. bass and drums. we were telepathic then. and the four of us were telepathic. # love, love me do # you know i love you # i'll always be true # so please # love me do. there was no band tighter,
i don't ever believe. i'd be in the cans, with my headphones. you'd just know we were going to go somewhere else. so you'd bring it up, or bring it down, as far as i'm concerned, the drummer. do you feel today that perhaps you and george didn't get quite as much credit as the others and it wasn't quite fair in that sense? i didn't ever feel it wasn't fair. because we had the finest writers and musicians, and vocalist. that was how it was. so, it was alwastohn, paul, george and ringo. that's how it is, you know? no, we were the band and i love those guys. i've felt love from the three of them. yeah, we had a few rows, but that was then, i think that's what everybody has. sure. and do you feel you've had your due from the critics? i mean, you're still much loved.
you see, i'm getting it now. the remasters. no, "john, paul, george... and ringoooo." because you know, anyone can play like that. well, they can't. i knew that. and i knew when we went to america and i met a lot of drummers, they said they call us to the studio, theyjust want us to play like you. so, i had no problem with it. i didn't like it, but it didn't stop me playing. ijust played the way i played. i play emotionally, that's how i do it. is that the secret? is that the ringo style? well, that's my way of doing it. i don't know if it's the secret. it's not a secret now, i just told you! how do you feel, being back? i know you visit often. you said that you voted brexit, or that was your indication... i didn't vote, i was out of the country. i wondered. i said the people voted, and they have to get on with it. suddenly it's, like, "well,
we don't like that vote." what you mean you don't like that vote? you had the vote, this is what won, let's get on with it. would you have voted that way? i would have voted for brexit, yes. i would have voted to get out. but don't tell bob geldof! why did you vote that way? because i think it's a great move. i think, you know, to be in control of your own country is a good move. of course, you won't be around for it... i'm living in america, so... you're on easy street either way! # not so long ago, back in liverpool... ringo hymns his home town of liverpool on the new album. there's an effigy of the fab four in topiary there. 0r there was. i went onjonathan ross and he said, "is there anything you miss about liverpool?" and it was like in fun between the two of us. "no." and the four people in the wirral went mad. and this guy cut my head off.
hedgetrimmer buzzes what is the truth about that? i love liverpool, it's where i was brought up. you know, it's my roots. have you ever been anywhere where people don't know who you are? i believe the only place we're not really big is china. because they had the revolution when we were around. well, i'd love to talk to you more, but i think we've run out of time. we've run out of tape. # we're on the road again... he's right, we have run out of time. that's it for tonight. but we leave you with this advert for halo top ice cream, which proves that it really doesn't matter what you say about your product just as long as everyone talks about it. sleep well — if you can. good morning. it is time for ice cream. # ijust need ice cream for you and me...
it's good. # a tasty treat that you must eat... where am i? humans require ice cream. what is this place? eat the ice cream. how long have i been here? you're so hungry for delicious ice cream. get that away from me. where's steven? # ice cream for you... everyone you love is gone. # ice cream, that's all you need. ..we are . . we are looking at a mixture of sandland showers in the coming days. it is set to get cooler. —— sunshine and showers. north pole and, lithuania, and estonia, getting hit by gusts pursing on thursday morning. the risk of damage and destruction. —— macon. nine or 10 degrees widely, down to six in the countryside in scotland. actually in the air there countryside in scotland. actually in the airthere —— countryside in scotland. actually in the air there —— north pollen. in the air there —— north pollen. in the south, destructive cloud stretches its way across east anglia and the west of wales. that early
morning sunshine is probably short lead. many of us will see some morning sunshine. showers from the word go. it will feel chilly pirsig in the morning. as the day goes by, the cloud across england breaks up. we will see some sunshine coming out and we will get some sunny spells. but then the showers. they will be widespread, some with helen thunder. they may tend to merge together to give lengthier patches of rain. —— ale and thunder. temperatures could go down by four or five degrees very few minutes. it will feel chilly then. going through the night—time, then. going through the night—time, the showers will push south. —— hail and thunder. a similar and temperature tomorrow night as for tonight. then friday we do it all again. similar weather. the showers
will move southwards, with cloud at times. it will feel quite chilly again. temperatures coming down. 16 degrees in london. 12 for the north of scotland. those kinds of temperatures are the ones we will have at the weekend. this low pressure is blocking the atlantic air, so ourwind pressure is blocking the atlantic air, so our wind is coming from the north. this weekend, we will see showers particularly across central and southern england. it will feel quite cool. perhaps even cold enough, as the winds drop, for some air frost enough, as the winds drop, for some airfrost in enough, as the winds drop, for some air frost in sheltered parts of northern scotland. temperatures going down. is—i6d at best this weekend. i am forecasting thermostat wars. “— weekend. i am forecasting thermostat wars. —— north pollen. —— 15—16 i'm rico hizon in singapore,
the headlines — a humanitarian catastrophe: the un secretary general voices his criticism of myanmar‘s treatment of its rohingya minority: a call on the authorities to suspend action and violence, to uphold the rule of law. but as we've been finding out — in myanmar, the crisis is seen but as we've been finding out — in myanmar, the crisis rather differently. the perception here is that it is bernie ‘s board is under siege from militant islam. i'm babita sharma in london. also in the programme.