before going down the ice waterfall in svalbard, norway. he described the experience as "like kayaking on another planet". we might all have some words for it. time for a look at the weather. here's helen willetts. have we got some of that weather? certainly we have some wintry weather. some of the coldest november nights for about 12 or 13 years and is leading to some ice and snow issues and freezing fog will just add to the hazards as well. the rain and the snow that we had through devon and, starting to move out of the way. if you wintry showers around the periphery and we will see some icy conditions because temperatures are plummeting away. the mist, low cloud and fog is forming, freezing fog to add into that makes. a colder night than last night by degree or so and a colder day tomorrow. some freezing fog potentially for the central lowlands, northern england and wales and the ice risk around. some wintry showers in essex and kent and parts of scotland. if you more in the west tomorrow but a lot dry and sunny weather where the fog clears away and away from the shelves. but it won't help our temperatures. barely 3-4 won't help our temperatures. barely 3—4 for most and freezing fog lingering, which could be nasty in the morning. tomorrow night, we have a weather system approaching from the west. enhancing the shower is a little this programme continues on bbc one. at the covid inquiry, matt hancock says he's not a liar, tried to �*wake up whitehall�* to the scale of the crisis coming, and that many lives could have been saved if the uk had locked down three weeks earlier. some suggest the former health secretary is being set up to be the scapegoat for mistakes and shortcomings. we'll talk tojean adamson, whose dad died in a care home in april 2020. there wasn't, after all, a protetctive ring round, them mr hancock admitted today. and anjana ahuja,, a science writer at the financial times. in his only bbc interview, omid scobie on his new controversial royal book the waleses didn't comment on tonight. the truth about how the names of the so—called royal racists ended up in the dutch version, and is the monachy really on the cusp of extinction, as he claims? as russia's top court rules that lgbt activists should be designated as "extremists". we talk to a member of pussy riot about this latest attack on queer rights. # dirty old town. and the pogues�* singer shane macgowan has died. we'll talk to his friend, film director alex cox. good evening. if your loved one died from covid in the first wave of deaths in this country in 2020, then it will likely have been absolutely gutting to hear the former health secretary for england today tell the covid inquiry that had the uk locked down on 2nd march 2020, instead of march 23rd, the country could have prevented 90% of those first—wave deaths. and then there was the bit where mr hancock admitted the so—called protective ring he claimed had been put around care homes was not after all "an unbroken one". the ex—tory mp, who now sits an independent, also said today he told then pm borisjohnson on the 13th march there should be an �*immediate lockdown�*, though the inquiry heard there's no email, whatsapp or note backing that up and he didn't write it in his pandemic diaries book. mr hancock for his part, says he and his department �*drove the sytem hard�* and �*worked hard�*, often against what he said was a �*toxic culture�* at the heart of government. we�*ll get reaction from jean adamson, whose dad died of covid in 2020, and science writer anjana ahuja. first, here�*s nick. just a few years ago, images that defined a piece time emergency, and one of the central figures at the time, the health secretary for england, matt hancock. sincerely and truly... time to tell his story, after becoming something of a punchbag. he had a habit of saying things which he didn't have a basis for, and he would say them too enthusiastically, too early. definitely a pattern _ of being reassured that something was absolutely fine and then discovering it was _ very far from fine. the cabinet secretary said to me himself, the british system does not work if ministers lie. today, a fightback against claims he had been less than truthful during the pandemic. you will note that there is no evidence from anybody who i've worked with in the department or the health system who supported that, those false allegations. i think unfortunately the lesson for the future is, systems need to be in place, so if there is a malign actor in numberten... do you mean mr cummings? well, in this case that was the example, but there may be in the future, but if there are people whose behaviour is unprofessional, the system needs to be able to work, despite that. and time to explain his contribution. from early 2020, matt hancock tried to focus on the gathering storm, but number ten was more interested in implementing election manifesto commitments. by the end of february, hancock knew that drastic action was needed. in a phone call with borisjohnson on the 13th of march he advised on an immediate lockdown but that was not recorded in his diary. an earlier lockdown on the 2nd of march would, with hindsight, he said, have cut the death rate by 90% in the first wave. after criticism that the government was slow to acknowledge the significance of asymptomatic spreading of the virus, hancock said he should have overruled the scientists who suggested this would not happen. this is the moment when the covid inquiry will receive maximum attention. matt hancock today and boris johnson next week, our leaders during the pandemic, and at times it be uncomfortable for them. this is the accountability stage. but this inquiry will eventually come to a rounded judgment. no doubt there will be the success of the vaccine roll—out and then there will be the lessons learned. all in all, it�*s got a long way to run. he was not talking about the full suite of his responsibilities. an advocate for government transparency thinks it would be wrong to lose sight of the more reflective elements of the inquiry. i think this is a unique opportunity to learn about how decisions were taken, what evidence was before them but also how decisions would be taken in the future, with the benefit of what we know now. ministers who were making those decisions are the best people to tell us that, so we need to think about not just the blame part and the accountability part but also the genuine insight that might have arisen from their experience. and it is something of an experience. my goodness, it is insight we could find our lives depending upon in the future. and tracey brown laments the way borisjohnson�*s government generates headlines. one of the frustrations here, amid many, many questions that the public would like to see answered, is that we�*ve narrowed down into personalities and the inquiry itself seems to have been drawn that way, so what we�*re getting now is a lot of people�*s recollections and perhaps the hindsight prism on that is being very fair to them. we�*re getting a lot of willy waving about who would have locked down sooner. a final day in the witness box tomorrow for matt hancock. next week, over to borisjohnson. let�*s speak now tojean adamson, whose dad aldrick, a 98—year—old who�*d arrived in britain from barbados as part of the 19505 windrush generation, died after contracting covid in a care home in april 2020, and is from the covid—19 bereaved families forjustice. welcome to newsnight. and anjuna ahuja, a science journalist and co—author of the book �*spike�* with former sage scientistjeremy farrar. when matt hancock said that 90% of deaths could have been avoided in the first wave if the uk had locked down earlier, how did you feel? i felt really devastated, actually. it's felt really devastated, actually. it�*s so easy to say that, you know, with hindsight, but the feeling that sticks with me is that my father shouldn�*t have died in the circumstances in which he did and that if matt hancock and the government had acted more promptly, that his life and many, many thousands of others�*s could be saved. so it�*s very hard to listen to that. and it really... it is heartbreaking, yeah, truly heartbreaking. i5 heartbreaking, yeah, truly heartbreaking.— heartbreaking, yeah, truly heartbreakin. , ., heartbreaking. is it a controversial thin to heartbreaking. is it a controversial thing to say _ heartbreaking. is it a controversial thing to say now. _ heartbreaking. is it a controversial thing to say now, with _ heartbreaking. is it a controversial thing to say now, with hindsight, i heartbreaking. is it a controversial| thing to say now, with hindsight, if we had lockdown three weeks earlier, many lives could have been saved, or is it plain fact? it is many lives could have been saved, or is it plain fact?— is it plain fact? it is almost obvious. — is it plain fact? it is almost obvious, isn't _ is it plain fact? it is almost obvious, isn't it, _ is it plain fact? it is almost obvious, isn't it, because. is it plain fact? it is almost| obvious, isn't it, because if is it plain fact? it is almost - obvious, isn't it, because if you are trying — obvious, isn't it, because if you are trying to _ obvious, isn't it, because if you are trying to break the chain of transmission of a you need to reduce sociai— transmission of a you need to reduce social contact and the earlier you can do— social contact and the earlier you can do that, the quicker you contain it to stop— can do that, the quicker you contain it to stop people being infected. for me — it to stop people being infected. for me what was really a bombshell revelation _ for me what was really a bombshell revelation was that he said he had had this_ revelation was that he said he had had this phone call with boris johnson — had this phone call with boris johnson on the 13th of march to try and persuade him to close down the country. _ and persuade him to close down the country. to— and persuade him to close down the country, to go into lockdown. now i don't _ country, to go into lockdown. now i don't recall— country, to go into lockdown. now i don't recall when i was writing the book— don't recall when i was writing the book with — don't recall when i was writing the book withjeremy, seeing don't recall when i was writing the book with jeremy, seeing that don't recall when i was writing the book withjeremy, seeing that in documents or anybody saying that to me. documents or anybody saying that to m but _ documents or anybody saying that to me. but one thing we know that happened — me. but one thing we know that happened on the 13th of march was the fateful sage meeting, on friday the fateful sage meeting, on friday the 13th. _ the fateful sage meeting, on friday the 13th, and that is where not only had the _ the 13th, and that is where not only had the pictures become very clear from _ had the pictures become very clear from italy. — had the pictures become very clear from italy, but also i think the people — from italy, but also i think the people at— from italy, but also i think the people at sage were getting a site of the _ people at sage were getting a site of the academic curve but also how that would — of the academic curve but also how that would clash with hospital capacity— that would clash with hospital capacity and people realised then i think _ capacity and people realised then i think an — capacity and people realised then i think... an warner was in the meeting. _ think... an warner was in the meeting, dominic cummings had sent him and _ meeting, dominic cummings had sent him and he _ meeting, dominic cummings had sent him and he had taken a message to number— him and he had taken a message to number ten specifically to dominic cummings and that triggered a flurry of meetings that weekend —— ben warner— of meetings that weekend —— ben warner was in the meeting. you were at the _ warner was in the meeting. you were at the inquiry— warner was in the meeting. you were at the inquiry and watching it closely — at the inquiry and watching it closely and previous witnesses have questioned mr hancock's relationship with the _ questioned mr hancock's relationship with the truth. the questioned mr hancock's relationship with the truth.— with the truth. the question of whether he — with the truth. the question of whether he said _ with the truth. the question of whether he said to _ with the truth. the question of whether he said to boris - with the truth. the question of. whether he said to boris johnson with the truth. the question of- whether he said to boris johnson on whether he said to borisjohnson on friday the 13th of march, we need an immediate lockdown, did you believe him? ., ., , , ., immediate lockdown, did you believe him? ., , ., wn immediate lockdown, did you believe him?_ why not? i him? no, absolutely not. why not? because matt _ him? no, absolutely not. why not? because matt hancock _ him? no, absolutely not. why not? because matt hancock has - him? no, absolutely not. why not? because matt hancock has got - him? no, absolutely not. why not? because matt hancock has got a - because matt hancock has got a history of lying and that�*s become very clear throughout this inquiry. i mean obviously he said today that he isn�*t a lawyer, and that they are false allegations. so he isn't a lawyer, and that they are false allegations.— false allegations. so everyone else isl int, false allegations. so everyone else is lying. then? _ false allegations. so everyone else is lying, then? he _ false allegations. so everyone else is lying, then? he said _ false allegations. so everyone else is lying, then? he said there - false allegations. so everyone else is lying, then? he said there is - false allegations. so everyone else is lying, then? he said there is no | is lying, then? he said there is no evidence and _ is lying, then? he said there is no evidence and that _ is lying, then? he said there is no evidence and that they _ is lying, then? he said there is no evidence and that they made - evidence and that they made generalised allegations. well, he's collea . ues generalised allegations. well, he's colleagues that _ generalised allegations. well, he's colleagues that have _ generalised allegations. well, he's colleagues that have come - generalised allegations. well, he's colleagues that have come beforel generalised allegations. well, he's i colleagues that have come before him and given evidence at the inquiry over the last few weeks, several of them have made reference to his lies. helen macnamara, she gave her testimony a few weeks ago and described him as having nuclear, nuclear levels of confidence and also that he had a habit of saying things which were later found to be untrue. so, you know, there are quite a few fingers pointing at him in terms of his ability to actually tell the truth. i5 in terms of his ability to actually tell the truth.— tell the truth. is this... are the ri . ht tell the truth. is this... are the right questions _ tell the truth. is this... are the right questions being _ tell the truth. is this... are the right questions being asked - tell the truth. is this... are the i right questions being asked of you —— for you? are they helping us to avoid facing a pandemic in the future? . ., , ., future? the main thing to focus on is how decisions _ future? the main thing to focus on is how decisions were _ future? the main thing to focus on is how decisions were made, - future? the main thing to focus on i is how decisions were made, whether you have _ is how decisions were made, whether you have the — is how decisions were made, whether you have the right lines of command, whether— you have the right lines of command, whether you — you have the right lines of command, whether you can deal with a crisis of this— whether you can deal with a crisis of this magnitude. 0ne whether you can deal with a crisis of this magnitude. one thing i think almost _ of this magnitude. one thing i think almost everyone has mentioned about the inquiry— almost everyone has mentioned about the inquiry is how... perhaps it is how— the inquiry is how... perhaps it is how it _ the inquiry is how... perhaps it is how it is — the inquiry is how... perhaps it is how it is being covered, it focused on personalities, so we are talking about— on personalities, so we are talking about dominic cummings and matt hancock, _ about dominic cummings and matt hancock, all of the inside westminster gossip, which is great drarna _ westminster gossip, which is great drama about what we actually want to know is _ drama about what we actually want to know is whether the system worked. i think we _ know is whether the system worked. i think we have to wait and see. going back to _ think we have to wait and see. going back to the _ think we have to wait and see. going back to the point about the phone call, i_ back to the point about the phone call, i mean it's incredible that the secretary of state for health could _ the secretary of state for health could have run the prime minister to ask for— could have run the prime minister to ask for this — could have run the prime minister to ask for this incredible intervention and for— ask for this incredible intervention and for there to be no evidence for it. , ., ., ., , ., it. there is no note, there was no whatsapp- _ it. there is no note, there was no whatsapp- not — it. there is no note, there was no whatsapp. not in _ it. there is no note, there was no whatsapp. not in the _ it. there is no note, there was no whatsapp. not in the diary. - it. there is no note, there was no whatsapp. not in the diary. 1. it. there is no note, there was no i whatsapp. not in the diary. i mean, that's quite — whatsapp. not in the diary. i mean, that's quite interesting. _ whatsapp. not in the diary. i mean, that's quite interesting. but - whatsapp. not in the diary. i mean, that's quite interesting. but we'll. that's quite interesting. but we'll have _ that's quite interesting. but we'll have borisjohnson next week that's quite interesting. but we'll have boris johnson next week only supposed — have boris johnson next week only supposed to have taken the phone call and _ supposed to have taken the phone call and one would have thought might— call and one would have thought might remember that.— call and one would have thought might remember that. there was an admission from _ might remember that. there was an admission from mr _ might remember that. there was an admission from mr hancock - might remember that. there was an admission from mr hancock today, i might remember that. there was an i admission from mr hancock today, he conceded that the protective ring he claimed he had thrown around care homes wasn�*t in fact unbroken, so not a ring at all. homes wasn't in fact unbroken, so not a ring at all.— not a ring at all. again, no surprises _ not a ring at all. again, no surprises there. _ not a ring at all. again, no surprises there. he's - not a ring at all. again, no surprises there. he's been not a ring at all. again, no - surprises there. he's been spinning surprises there. he�*s been spinning that lie for quite a long time during the pandemic. it was very clear to me that there was no protective ring, there were very few measures taken to protect the elderly in care homes. you should know because _ elderly in care homes. you should know because your _ elderly in care homes. you should know because your dad _ elderly in care homes. you should know because your dad was - elderly in care homes. you should know because your dad was in - elderly in care homes. you shouldl know because your dad was in one. elderly in care homes. you should - know because your dad was in one. my know because your dad was in one. iii father was know because your dad was in one. hi1: father was in know because your dad was in one. hi1 father was in a care home. many homes struggled to have sufficient ppe, adequate ppe. i recall vividly those images of care workers going in wearing bin liners. there was no testing in care homes. the hospital discharges, that policy, the now fateful policy which succeeded in seeding the virus into care homes, because, well, it was a national tragedy of mammoth proportions. the most vulnerable members of society were literallyjust lambs to the slaughter. you know, they were sitting ducks in the care homes and people were being discharged from hospital without having had a negative covid test. you know, so the protective ring was a fallacy. it always was. he tried to explain today it always was. he tried to explain toda , . it always was. he tried to explain toda j . ., ., ,., today what he had meant he said, what he meant _ today what he had meant he said, what he meant was _ today what he had meant he said, what he meant was that _ today what he had meant he said, what he meant was that we, the l today what he had meant he said, i what he meant was that we, the uk government, put 3 million into the care sector in march and april and released free ppe and put into place infection control, guidance based on scientific advice and so on. about that, something that came out today was— about that, something that came out today was a _ about that, something that came out today was a little bit of about when the government knew about asymptomatic transmission. that is something — asymptomatic transmission. that is something we cover in the book. i did they— something we cover in the book. i did they up — something we cover in the book. i did they up moved around quite a lot on that— did they up moved around quite a lot on that and _ did they up moved around quite a lot on that and i— did they up moved around quite a lot on that and i don't think i was clearer— on that and i don't think i was clearer today from the questioning and his— clearer today from the questioning and his answers, but what we do know is that— and his answers, but what we do know is that the _ and his answers, but what we do know is that the diamond princess, the cruise _ is that the diamond princess, the cruise ship — is that the diamond princess, the cruise ship that was quarantined off the coast _ cruise ship that was quarantined off the coast ofjapan, that was a perfect — the coast ofjapan, that was a perfect test—bed... and that was in february. _ perfect test—bed... and that was in february, 2020. somewhere around the middle _ february, 2020. somewhere around the middle when _ february, 2020. somewhere around the middle when asymptomatic people started _ middle when asymptomatic people started being tested, and they realised — started being tested, and they realised it was about 20% of people were carrying the virus without knowing — were carrying the virus without knowing it, without being symptomatic. what was important about _ symptomatic. what was important about that was that the cruise ship had an— about that was that the cruise ship had an older clientele, and the rates _ had an older clientele, and the rates of— had an older clientele, and the rates of asymptomatic transmission would _ rates of asymptomatic transmission would be _ rates of asymptomatic transmission would be higher than the general population so there was a fair body of evidence — population so there was a fair body of evidence to think that that is something that should have been accounted for.— something that should have been accounted for. ., ,, , ., ., .., accounted for. thank you for coming in, i know accounted for. thank you for coming in. i know that _ accounted for. thank you for coming in, i know that you _ accounted for. thank you for coming in, i know that you have _ accounted for. thank you for coming in, i know that you have had - accounted for. thank you for coming in, i know that you have had a - accounted for. thank you for coming in, i know that you have had a long. in, i know that you have had a long day, we appreciate you staying up for hours and for our audience, thank you. if you�*re beginning a global launch of a book on the royal family, perhaps it�*s... ideal if you have to recall it from sale in one country after it accidentally revealed the names of senior family members who have been accused of raising concerns about the skin colour of harry and meghan�*s first child. for the journalist 0mid scobie that was the reality this week after what publishers in holland called a "translation error" with the book. certainly the controversy means the book has succeeded in grabbing the headlines and tonight, the prince and princess of wales at the royal variety performance — with lots of flash photography — did their best to ignore questions on the fallout. have you got, have you heard the claims about? 0mid scobie�*s here and we�*ll speak to him injust a moment — first let�*s bring you up to speed. is the very survival of britain�*s royal family in doubt? that�*s a question suggested by the title of 0mid scobie�*s new book. there�*s been no shortage of royal revelations in recent years. i let the side down. simple as that. from prince andrew�*s newsnight interview... conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born. ..harry and meghan�*s sit—down with 0prah... what?! ..harry�*s memoir, and an earlier scobie book about the sussexes called finding freedom. how much does this book tell us that�*s new, and does it move the royals closer to the endgame? it is a retelling of many of the stories that have gone before. i coined the term "workshy wills" in a story that i did for one of the uk�*s biggest newspapers. i wrote about how there were concerns that william wasn�*t stepping up to the mark, he wasn�*t doing enough work, that he was in norfolk. i wrote that kate wasn�*t doing enough engagements, and that she was, some said, "a bit dull". i don�*t think this is the end of the monarchy. for me, this book is about two years out of date. we�*ve had a very successful succession. charles has done a good job. the biggest revelation of all — the names of the royals said by harry and meghan to have had "concerns" about the colour of their first baby�*s skin. those names included by mistake in the hastily—withdrawn dutch edition. the english original says, "laws in the uk prevent me from reporting who they were". harry and meghan�*s lickspittle clientjournalist, 0mid scobie... critics have labelled the author partisan, part of the "sussex industrial grievance complex", and "meghan�*s mouthpiece". scobie reports he shared a "goodbye hug" with meghan when she moved back to the states, but has said, "i�*m not meg�*s pal," joining us now, the man at the centre of all this, author of endgame, 0mid scobie. good evening. thank you for being with us. let�*s talk about the names of the two senior royals which appeared in the dutch version. 0riginally you said it was a translation error which did not make sense because they are names who would not be mistranslated then the publisher said it was an error, and today you said you never submitted a book which had the names on it and today the dutch publisher has said the names were in the manuscript that you visit, she said as a translator i translate what is in front of me, the names of the royals were there in black and white, i didn�*t add them, i did what i was paid to do, and that is translate the book from english into dutch". so that is what happened. what the book from english into dutch". so that is what happened.- so that is what happened. what a series of events. _ so that is what happened. what a series of events. what _ so that is what happened. what a series of events. what frustrating is experience of events for a book that was so heavily vetted and lee gould, and a book that i was extremely proud of now completely overshadowed by an event that has caused me a lot of frustration as well. we have a full investigation going into this —— that was legalled. we found out on social media, we saw that there was one name in the book and the dutch publisher told us that there was a translation error so you get on with the day, then it unfolds from there. i am looking forward to finding out more about it. because the english version of the book, the person that i signed off on, that is the book thatis i signed off on, that is the book that is out there today. that is the book that has no names on it. and i make it very clear, because ultimately to write the names, it is a show and tell the situation, there is no ability to share, so there was never an attempt to name. in some versions you — never an attempt to name. in some versions you must _ never an attempt to name. in some versions you must have _ never an attempt to name. in some versions you must have written - never an attempt to name. in some versions you must have written the | versions you must have written the names in and the wrong person has potentially gone to the people in charge of the rights around the world, i suppose. charge of the rights around the world, isuppose. can charge of the rights around the world, i suppose. can you, charge of the rights around the world, isuppose. can you, hand charge of the rights around the world, i suppose. can you, hand on heart look me in the eye and said it was not published? {lin heart look me in the eye and said it was not published?— heart look me in the eye and said it was not published? on my life, and my family's — was not published? on my life, and my family's life- — was not published? on my life, and my family's life. it _ was not published? on my life, and my family's life. it is _ was not published? on my life, and my family's life. it is serious. - my family�*s life. it is serious. because i feel hurt by some of the things i have seen today which have suggested all sorts, the conspiracy theory is that this is a publicity stunt, that i am in cahoots with my pal, the nonsense and the tabloids, all of this is frustrating, because it feeds into something that couldn�*t be further from the truth. i also, quite frankly, have always felt that the names are not needed, to have this discussion. i to have this discussion. i understand that. meghan and harry themselves did not name names, but somehow, your book has. do you want to apologise to the royal family, for the names that are out there? it is not for me to apologise it because i still want to know what has happened. because i still want to know what has happened-— because i still want to know what has happened. but the buck stops with ou? has happened. but the buck stops with you? there _ has happened. but the buck stops with you? there are _ has happened. but the buck stops with you? there are a _ has happened. but the buck stops with you? there are a responsiblej with you? there are a responsible --eole in with you? there are a responsible people in this _ with you? there are a responsible people in this country _ with you? there are a responsible people in this country that - with you? there are a responsible people in this country that had - people in this country that had broken the law and repeated names that should never have been repeated and been named. the book that i wrote, edited and signed off on did not have names in it. i am as frustrated as everyone else. it frustrated as everyone else. it is called endgame. _ frustrated as everyone else. it is called endgame. obviously as you know the institution has survived all sorts of scandals, the abdication of edward viii, divorces, affairs, the death of princess diana, the way the queen initially reacted, prince andrew�*s friendship with a paedophile, his interview on this programme and opinion polls show a majority in favour of the institution. what is different about now that makes you think this is potentially the endgame? i now that makes you think this is potentially the endgame? i think, i reall feel potentially the endgame? i think, i really feel that _ potentially the endgame? i think, i really feel that we _ potentially the endgame? i think, i really feel that we have _ potentially the endgame? i think, i really feel that we have reached . really feel that we have reached this pivotal moment in time where the future of the royal family as we know it is upstaged. we have seen it happen with european monarchies in the past, that sort of path to either glory or to fade into irrelevance and become a tourist attraction. i have covered the royals since 2011. when we celebrated the life of the queen last year we celebrated the back that she upheld morals, values, ethics and principles and those scandals you listed do not adhere to those... , . ., ,, those... they all happened under her reitn. those... they all happened under her reign- they — those... they all happened under her reign- they will _ those... they all happened under her reign. they will not _ those... they all happened under her reign. they will not her _ reign. they will not her responsibility. - reign. they will not her responsibility. i- reign. they will not herj responsibility. iwanted reign. they will not her i responsibility. i wanted to look into, do the current royal family members are pulled the same principles, values and ethics as the queen did, —— uphold the same. and if not what should be done to same to fix that? like matt what do you think that the royals have to do to change to survive? the conversation that we are not having enough of, because now we are talking about the names and all the scandal about that, wasting our time on other things, but the reason why it is important to discuss that without names in the book is because this was a conversation that happened, sure, behind private doors, but it was hard by publicly funded officials that represent an institution that sits on the top of our country, this melting pot that is britain, and for those conversations to be still ignored today and still not to have happened, this is not about harry and meghan complaining but about something much bigger. so that is one example of many things that i feel, ratherthan one example of many things that i feel, rather than addressing problems of the past and moving forward, with maturity, with growth, we are ignoring, we are distracting, we are ignoring, we are distracting, we are ignoring, we are distracting, we are doing everything back, so i think that does really challenge the current state of the firm.— current state of the firm. william said there is _ current state of the firm. william said there is nobody _ current state of the firm. william said there is nobody in _ current state of the firm. william said there is nobody in the i current state of the firm. william said there is nobody in the family| said there is nobody in the family who is nobody in the family was racist. i who is nobody in the family was racist. . , racist. i have never used the r word. racist. i have never used the r word- and _ racist. i have never used the r word. and harry _ racist. i have never used the r word. and harry points i racist. i have never used the r word. and harry points out i racist. i have never used the ri word. and harry points out that neither did _ word. and harry points out that neither did he _ word. and harry points out that neither did he and _ word. and harry points out that neither did he and meghan i word. and harry points out that neither did he and meghan in i word. and harry points out that i neither did he and meghan in that oprah interview. you have written many critical things about william and kate but seem not to about meghan and harry. why don�*t you approach both couples equally? critical thing i have said about harry and making is on page two of the book, they are relevant in the story of the royal family. —— harry and meghan. this isn�*t a book about them. but and meghan. this isn't a book about them. �* , ., them. but it is, there are some really cutting — them. but it is, there are some really cutting comments i them. but it is, there are some really cutting comments about| them. but it is, there are some i really cutting comments about one couple and not about the other. ii couple and not about the other. if they were still working members of they were still working members of the royal family then they should be scrutinised like we do with any other publicly funded official but it is a different time now so there is not even a chapter on making in the book, she is mentioned in a few paragraphs in a section about harry. —— on meghan. but stories from their time as working royals are used as examples to highlight some of the issues. ~ , ., ., , issues. when did you last communicate _ issues. when did you last communicate with i issues. when did you last| communicate with anyone issues. when did you last i communicate with anyone from issues. when did you last _ communicate with anyone from their team, orwith communicate with anyone from their team, or with them? communicate with anyone from their team, orwith them? other communicate with anyone from their team, or with them? other royal correspondents never get asked about their sources. correspondents never get asked about their sources-— their sources. there is not a world in which i have _ their sources. there is not a world in which i have seen _ their sources. there is not a world in which i have seen on _ their sources. there is not a world in which i have seen on this i their sources. there is not a world in which i have seen on this year i their sources. there is not a world | in which i have seen on this year or any other anyjournalist ever any other any journalist ever questioned any other anyjournalist ever questioned about whether information comes about the royals were being friends with them, i have never sat in a room with meghan and done an interview with her on or off the record. eye contact their team and i contact the palace communications people on a regular basis as part of myjob but that is myjob as a journalist, not as a friend, not as a mouthpiece, it isjust thejob. you say that you have had 20 death threats in the last week. how do you cope with that? i threats in the last week. how do you cope with that?— cope with that? i will say that doint cope with that? i will say that doing this _ cope with that? i will say that doing this job _ cope with that? i will say that doing this job full-time i cope with that? i will say that doing this job full-time now i cope with that? i will say that i doing this job full-time now six doing this job full—time now six years, i have covered the royals since 2011, i�*m used to it so the skin is thick, but it is sad that that has had to become the norm, but i also think about so much of that is stoked by a lot of the nonsense that has appeared about this book in the days leading up to it. supposedly i had criticised kate and said that all she does is grin in front of the cameras or something along those lines. there is nothing in the book that remotely resembles that. i never said that but i received a backlash for that. and thatis received a backlash for that. and that is a regular occurrence for me, simply because my narrative challenges others, it is different. and difference, as we know, does not go down very well. and difference, as we know, does not go down very well-— go down very well. thank you very much for talking _ go down very well. thank you very much for talking to _ go down very well. thank you very much for talking to us _ go down very well. thank you very much for talking to us tonight, i go down very well. thank you very i much for talking to us tonight, omid scobie, the author of endgame. russia�*s top court ruled today that lgbt activists should be designated as "extremists" — in a move that gay and trans people fear will lead to arrests and prosecutions. the ruling in effect outlaws lgbtq+ activism in a country growing increasingly conservative since the start of the war in ukraine. the full scale invasion, i should say. in a moment we�*ll be talking to a member of pussy riot, for years, russia�*s lgbt community has been under growing pressure. in 2013, a law banned what it called propaganda towards children of non—traditional sexual relations. that law led to protests. at one in london, stephen fry made this prediction. i think putin�*s russia will become the most dangerous country on earth very, very soon. the more powerful he gets. if no—one says no to you, ever, then you just go mad. the man will go mad. certainly, things continued to get worse for those who did not conform. in 2015, police arrested people for taking part in a pride march. in 2020 the constitution was changed to explicitly ban gay marriage. then, today, this. translation: to recognise the international public- lgbt movement and its structural subdivisions as extremist and to ban their activities on the territory of the russian federation. there was no representation for the defendants, partly because there is no legal entity called the international lgbt public movement. the decision, handed down by russia�*s supreme court, means anyone the state deems to be a gay rights activist could go to jailfor being part of "an extremist organisation". translation: both as an activist and as an lgbt person, _ we are the lowest in the prison hierarchy. violence is used against us, so this is a very serious moment. the russian government says this is all about protecting traditional family values. president putin has made orthodox christianity a key pillar of his regime. but others think this is less about values and more about votes. translation: it seems to me this is to a certain extent _ part of the presidential election campaign but they will pass and the court decision will remain. this is a very serious danger. in recent years, not conforming in russia has become increasingly difficult. the people whose sexuality or identity the state has declared extremist, thingsjust got more dangerous still. i�*m joined now by nadya tolokonnikova russian dissident, gay rights activist and member of the feminist protestest art collective, pussy riot. they were arrested and sentenced to two years in prison in 2012 after perfoming a song called punk prayer which attacked the orthodox church�*s support for president putin. she was later released under an amnesty law. thank you for talking to us. so, what does _ thank you for talking to us. so, what does this _ thank you for talking to us. so, what does this new ban mean for activists in russia, in practical terms? it activists in russia, in practical terms? ., , , activists in russia, in practical terms? , , ., ., activists in russia, in practical terms? , ., ., terms? it opens up a window for bull in: terms? it opens up a window for bullying and _ terms? it opens up a window for bullying and for _ terms? it opens up a window for bullying and for hate _ terms? it opens up a window for bullying and for hate crime. i terms? it opens up a window for bullying and for hate crime. the| bullying and for hate crime. the level of hate crime was rising with the law against gay propaganda, so—called gay propaganda. but our government is the main terrorist and it is terrorising not only its neighbours but its own people as well and people like me who are not conforming to gender stereotypes are of the primary target of my government.— of the primary target of my government. of the primary target of my covernment. ~ } ., �* , government. why? if that's true, wh ? government. why? if that's true, why? what's _ government. why? if that's true, why? what's going _ government. why? if that's true, why? what's going on? - government. why? if that's true, why? what's going on? my i government. why? if that's true, | why? what's going on? my theory government. why? if that's true, i why? what's going on? my theory is that putin has _ why? what's going on? my theory is that putin has no _ why? what's going on? my theory is that putin has no ideology, - why? what's going on? my theory is that putin has no ideology, right? i that putin has no ideology, right? his ideology is to get as much power and money as possible. he wants to exploit our country, exploit natural resources, oil and gas, while he still can and he treats everyone else as people who, you know, basically as trash, so he doesn�*t really care about russian people. he doesn�*t care about ideals as well. does he care about christianity? i don�*t think so. he was part of the kgb. there is a saying among kgb officers that there is no such thing as a former kgb agent. one of the goals of the kgb�*s existence was to destroy christianity which is where putin is coming from.— destroy christianity which is where putin is coming from. when you look back... putin is coming from. when you look back- -- you — putin is coming from. when you look back... you aren't _ putin is coming from. when you look back... you aren't in _ putin is coming from. when you look back... you aren't in russia - putin is coming from. when you look back... you aren't in russia now, i back... you aren�*t in russia now, you elsewhere because you would be arrested, if you look back to the 90s, for example, it didn�*t feel like this, did it? 90s, for example, it didn't feel like this, did it?— like this, did it? no, it didn't, reall . i like this, did it? no, it didn't, really- i was _ like this, did it? no, it didn't, really. i was growing - like this, did it? no, it didn't, really. i was growing up i like this, did it? no, it didn't, really. i was growing up in i like this, did it? no, it didn't,| really. i was growing up in the like this, did it? no, it didn't, - really. i was growing up in the 90s and it was a great time. it is very difficult for the generation of my parents economically but for me it was awesome because the country was opening up, we had gay parties and gay bars. if you think about it, the most known thing coming from russia, apart from war... do girls who are taking identity of lesbians openly... and that was the reality of where i was going up and a year orso of where i was going up and a year or so ago there was an opinion poll, started by some russian government agency showing a much less percentage of russian people and our government wants to think is against homosexual people. the thing about russian people, they are apathetic about everything, they aren�*t protesting the war in ukraine, which is horrible. ~ , �* is horrible. well, they can't because — is horrible. well, they can't because they _ is horrible. well, they can't because they get, - is horrible. well, they can't because they get, you i is horrible. well, they can't i because they get, you know... is horrible. well, they can't i because they get, you know. .. we is horrible. well, they can't _ because they get, you know. .. we had because they get, you know... we had an example where a woman was jailed for seven years for putting anti—war stickers on groceries in a supermarket in saint petersburg. but we got to leave it there, thank you for being with us and for talking to us. {iii for being with us and for talking to us. . ., , for being with us and for talking to us, . ., , ., for being with us and for talking to us. . ., , ., ., for being with us and for talking to us. of course, i meant to say something — us. of course, i meant to say something else, _ us. of course, i meant to say something else, but... i us. of course, i meant to say something else, but... go i us. of course, i meant to say | something else, but... go on, us. of course, i meant to say - something else, but... go on, go for it. i mean. — something else, but... go on, go for it. i mean. i— something else, but... go on, go for it. i mean, i guess— something else, but... go on, go for it. i mean, i guess the _ something else, but... go on, go for it. i mean, i guess the point- something else, but... go on, go for it. i mean, i guess the point of- something else, but... go on, go for it. i mean, i guess the point of my . it. i mean, i guess the point of my lona it. i mean, i guess the point of my long speech _ it. i mean, i guess the point of my long speech was — it. i mean, i guess the point of my long speech was that _ it. i mean, i guess the point of my long speech was that the - it. i mean, i guess the point of my long speech was that the russian | long speech was that the russian people are not homophobic. i spent some time in russianjail and was communicating with russian male prisoners and you know, for them it is a funny thing that you can... another guy and it isn't a reason to hate them. i’m another guy and it isn't a reason to hate them-— another guy and it isn't a reason to hate them. �* . . hate them. i'm so glad you made your oint. "once fairytale got big," shane macgowan said last year in an interview, "it was really boring and you get real sick of it. you're walking out on stage and they're applauding like mad before you've done anything." an insight for any who might have been wondering, into the effect of a quarter century of connection with what many credit as the greatest christmas song ever, fairytale of new york. of course the pogues frontman knew the group were about much more than one festive tune. the punk band, who formed in london, won over fans with macgowan�*s raw and creative lyrics which drew on his irish heritage. in the same interview last year — with the times — macgowan said he'd discovered drink at the age of four. booze and drugs became a dominant theme in his life, and before his death today following a brain condition, he had been unwell for some time. we'll speak in a moment to the film director alex cox, who was friends with macgowan and worked alongside him. first a reminder of his work — and no, it's not that one. # and a rovin�*, a rovin�*, a rovin�* i'll go # for a pair of brown eyes # and a rovin�*, a rovin�*, a rovin�* i'll go...# let's talk to alex cox, a film director who directed the pogues' music video a pair of brown eyes, and shane's friend. hello, thank you for being with us. so, what was he really likes? ihell. so, what was he really likes? well, i mean, i so, what was he really likes? well, i mean. ithink— so, what was he really likes? well, i mean, i think in _ so, what was he really likes? well, i mean, i think in a _ so, what was he really likes? well, i mean, i think in a way _ so, what was he really likes? well, i mean, i think in a way shane - so, what was he really likes? well, i mean, i think in a way shane was| i mean, i think in a way shane was caught in this trap, although, as you say, he was a london boy, his band, the pogues, were a london band he kind of played the irish drunkard because it was expected of him, or he felt it was expected of him. to a certain extent you didn't really know shane because he was so insulated by alcohol and drugs and the rest of it so the actuality