But our Political Editor nick watt has been around westminster finding out how this is all going down, and hes with me now. Can we put a figure on it . We can confirm that the uk has agreed to the eu framework for settling that financial divorce bill with eu when we leave. Stage one came in the Prime Ministers speech in florence when she said that the uk would agree to cover it share of the eu budget up to the end of 2020. The final stage has come just now, which is that the uk has agreed that it will meet its liabilities racked up as a member of the european union. Where you go from there is a matter of dispute. The sources i have been talking to say that they are not putting a number on the table. The Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph which broke this story, the Daily Telegraph is talking about a figure of up to 55 billion euros and the Financial Times is talking about 100 Million Euros but think it could be mass such down to half of that. The uk government do not want the figure at the table at the next summit. They never want a figure on the table. What they want to be able to do is offset that against our net payment and pay these liabilities as they are due in perhaps as long as decades to come. They have an ally in me shall buy. His view is that methodology is more important than a number. The papers are going on it. Financial times here. The times. There is the Daily Telegraph. The guardian. What does this tell us about theresa may and her whole approach to these negotiations . Theresa may once a dealer at the end of this process. The idea is to have it by october next year and then you can finalise it in parliament. She feels very strongly that you have got to move on to the second stage, the final trade talks and the transition talks. You have to do that at the summit next month and to do that you have got to come to some sort of agreement in the next week. There are some senior remain tories who say that the Prime Minister is talking a tough game. And then she is quietly sort of doing this deal in brussels. I think what ministers would say is we are making progress, we made this big movement, but on the money there will still be a line by line and analysis and crucially, they are not there yet on two big issues. One is the role of the European Court ofjustice in the future relationship with eu citizens of this country and also the irish border. Theresa may has gone to the middle east. She will not be answering questions about it tomorrow. It will be damian green standing in for the Prime Minister at Prime Ministers questions. There is a report going on into whether he behaved appropriately with a young woman journalist who he had a drink with and questions about alleged pornography on his computer. The interesting thing is, he is a passionate remainer who is delivering brexit bar when he was asked about it and how he would vote in another referendum, he said he would vote to remain. It is only a small surrey village near camberley, but the name deepcut has sadly become synonymous with a series of deaths at the barracks there. Four young trainees died by gunshot wounds over a number of years in the late 905 and early 20005. The strange but similar circumstances made the families deeply sceptical of initial suggestions of death by suicide. After perseverance by those families, subsequent reviews exposed a culture of bullying and harassment at the barracks, and found fault in the armys treatment of trainees. Questions were raised about the investigations into the deaths. And today one family successfully won a High Court Action to obtain a fresh inquest into the death of their son. Private geoff gray was only 17 when he died, 16 years ago. His parents spoke to us today. But first heres chris cook. I saw my son on a slab and he was 17 years old. I promised him then id find out the truth. I dont think weve found the truth yet. And i still owe him that promise. Private geoff gray died in 2001 at the Deepcut Army Barracks in surrey. He was found shot twice in the head with a rifle. The army ruled that his death was a suicide. The week before he died he had phoned us and he told us that somebody had taken their life in the barracks. I think he had taken some tablets and he had died. And he said, thats a cowards way out. And i thought, you know, hes talking about suicide being the cowards way out. So i dont think he did. Its not in his nature. In 2002 an inquest returned an open verdict and today the High Court Ordered that it was necessary or desirable in the interests of justice for a fresh inquest to be held. Private grays family believe the truth of his death at the deepcut barracks has not yet been uncovered. Looking at the fact that he was shot twice in the head. You always have to look at the fact that he may have been murdered. Once youve put one bullet in, your body will drop. You know, to be really graphic about this, the back of your head disappears. So your body will drop. The rifle will rise. You cant do it twice. Private grays death at deepcut sadly was not unique. Private sean benton died of gunshot wounds in 1995. A fresh inquest into his case will be heard next year. Private cherleames was found to have shot herself in the same year. There was a fresh inquest into her case lastjune. And private James Collinson was found dead with a single gunshot wound in 2002. The army came to my door and said your son has killed himself. Families have been fighting for years to learn the truth about the deepcut deaths. A heavy burden to add to their bereavement. We dont have a choice, there is no choice in that. You have to carry on. I have another son at home. I have to carry on for his sake. Life goes on living. Its sort of, we do this and then we have to carry on with family life as well. You know. And keep on going. And just try to get the truth of what actually happened to geoff. It is also difficult to get the expertise required to question the police and ministry of defence. Bereaved families in inquests should have legal aid whenever the state are represented. So for instance if you go into an inquest now and the police are there, the ministry of defence are there, the Fire Services are there, the nhs are there for instance, they will be quite properly represented by taxpayers money. Now if that is the case, why should believed families sit in court and simply faced that bank of lawyers against them with not a single lawyer being funded for them. It is outrageous. The families though will press on in the hope that one day, hopefully soon, they get a more convincing set of answers. Geoff signed up to serve his country. He died when he was 17 years old. His country should serve him now and we should find the truth. Let us look at some of the general issues raised by the difficulties parents have in getting inquests. Joining me now from salford is Pete Weatherby qc a specialist in public inquiries and inquests including hillsborough, grenfell and a whole raft of others. Good evening. We have had a string of cases going back it decades, blood contamination, hillsborough, orgreave, cases were families of those involved, in some ghastly tragedy, feel justice has not been done or questions been left unanswered. Do you see commonalities . Absolutely. These families have got to go through the whole process yet again to try and get at the truth, not just one family, it is not a coincidence, three of them as you just reported. You mentioned blood contamination, i could add to that the birmingham pub bombings, the new inquests 45 years on. In my view there are two common problems, the first is a duty, the candour that needs to be a duty, a legal duty of candour. What is a common part of all of these cases and apparently the deepcut ones as well is that there is new evidence coming forward. Why is that coming forward so long afterwards . What went wrong with the original investigations . The original enquiries . It appears given all of these historic cases, take the blood contamination case, go back to the early 1980s, when the evidence seems to show that the department of health knew that the blood was contaminated yet was still supplying people unknowingly who then went on to die from either hepatitis or hiv. In these cases there is a culture of denial as there would be in any authority when they are investigated. There shouldnt be. There is a culture of denial, institutional defensiveness where they reach for the denialfirst. If you look at grenfell, bringing us right up to date, immediately after the fire and you had the council saying that they have done nothing wrong, the emergency response, some of the contractor is issuing condolences, but at the end of them they were saying, by the way, we did nothing wrong either and people are making the denials before they have even looked at their own behaviour. The other feature of course is that we heard it in the peace there, everybody is very well legally represented apart from the families of the victims. Exactly. In any of these disasters or tragedies, that is exactly right. The army, the police, the local authorities, the nhs, whatever it is, all entirely properly fully represented, but the victims are not. If you look at the birmingham pub bombings, the families after 45 years, were spending most of their time trying to get funding so that they could go to the inquests of their loved ones. It is there a point that sometimes it is right to say it is time to close this issue, we are not going to have an enquiry . May be families are clinging onto unrealistic hopes of what might emerge or maybe the authorities genuinely know that there is nothing to be said. Is there ever a defence of saint, it is time up . I would look at it from the other end of the telescope, there should be an enquiry very quickly and it should be done properly and you can do that if there is a legal duty of candour, which makes a Public Authority or the public facing private entity in these days of privatisation, if there is a legal duty on them to be proactive in coming out with the truth and owning up to their own shortcomings. This is your proposed law. The hillsborough law. Quite a bit of cioss the hillsborough law. Quite a bit of cross party support. It has very strong cross party support. It had its first reading. It will go back into the house of commons sometime 0011. Into the house of commons sometime soon. That is what it does. It requires candour. Hopefully we wont have these repeated quest 15 years on. People proactively having to tell the truth. And it will put victims on a living playing fields in terms of representation level playing field. They will have public funding. We will see how that gets on. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Something is going badly wrong with the way we use clothing. In the last 15 years across the world the average number of times a garment is worn before it ceases to be used has gone down more than one third. In china, close award 70 fewer times than they were in 2002. On one level that tells us as we get richer we like to have more new things and fashionable ones at that. The report suggests this could potentially take us to catastrophic outcomes, environmentally. Here is the dilemma. Fashion is the industry that has grown in appeal over the decades, but by its nature it provides obsolescence. Fashion today in players out of fashion tomorrow. Who was that . The result is what todays report calls eight thaker, make, dispose model. They ta ke thaker, make, dispose model. They take nonrenewable resources, makes close and textiles with them, and they are then disposed of. That disposal reflects massive under recycling. And disposal itself costs tens of millions in britain alone. The fact is, weve become rather good at this model. Going into clothing production is a way of taking a poor country towards middle income status. And clothes for consumers are extraordinarily cheap as a result. This is the graphic in the report that says it all. As the world becomes richer, the number of garments being produced has doubled. But the number of times each garment is worn has plummeted. The solutions the report suggests include radically improving recycling, making durability more attractive, and even promoting more clothing rentals. What the report does not suggest is simply taxing clothes to make them more expensive. That would hurt the poor. And being able to choose clothes and to use them as a form of Self Expression almost defines what it is to be a modern consumer in an affluent society. Now the report was produced by the Ellen Mcarthur foundation, she was the round the world yachtswoman who now promotes the idea that the economy should be circular, with goods recycled round and round, not flowing straight into landfill. Contributors to the report included mckinsey the consultants, and many clothing businesses, including Stella Mccartneys. Well, just before the official launch earlier this evening, i went to the fashion gallery at the victoria and albert museum, to talk to Ellen Mcarthur and Stella Mccartney herself. First i asked ellen if we should blame the waste of textile materials on the very nature of fashion. I think the disposable nature of fashion is one of the challenges of the other challenge is to try to make that fashion that changes by definition fits within a system and that is what the report is about, building a broader system within which all products fit the design, the materials used, when they come out of the far end as fast fashion that material can be something that is technical like a plastic, or is biodegradable. If we did this right and we will more eco friendly in the way we dress, you might end up out of the job because you design one piece of clothing and instead of us changing it we would wear it for 20 years and not need as many new clothes. I do not worry about that. My Business Model is based on sustainability and i have a successful business. This report looks at working together at all levels of the industry and creating new business from it and looking at essentially the waist and finding a way of reusing rate and making it exciting, not looking at it as a problem all the time but an opportunity. It is a 500 billion us opportunity if we can get this right and will cover that material. 100 billion is not recycled every year and that is value to the industry. Can you persuade people that durability is attractive . If we are burning one truckload of clothing every second using it as landfill, there is nothing attractive about that. We all live on the planet together and we have to survive it. It is not a quick fix, but i think today we are bringing awareness to it and a different approach. It is rarely seen here but some companies have 5 million subscribers to have access to whatever clothing they want. When they get a new piece of clothing, the old one goes back. It is effectively rental but the clothing goes back into the system. Now if it has durability that will go out to someone else. When you build a system when clothing goes back they know what it is made from. It is also a new way to look at the fashion industry, all industries must review their impact on the planet now. It applies to every industry. It should apply to everything. It applies to everything and there are exciting alternatives. It has a second life. My clothes are on their and you can swap and barter clothing. Im a bit sceptical about the rental model with clothes, i like my own clothes. My clothes are on there. It is a modern approach because to have a future we need to have this conversation for our children. We will have to have these conversations. What would be your advice to an average consumer who likes to spend money on clothes and dress well and who sees dressing as a form of Self Expression, as part of their identity and the way they behave. What could they change right now . Right now the consumer in this country cannot be circular with fashion decisions, that is hard to do because the industry is not circular. With this report we are trying to get the industry to look at this vision and have a high level of ambition. And collaborate as never before. And incentivise people. It does not have to be punishment, it can be sexy and young. I get excited about the opportunities. As a Fashion Designer and businesswoman that is why im here today, im interested in the new. What you did not put in the report is the possibility of taxes because people will tell you what theyve got because they pay more. It is a valid point butjust taxing clothing will not solve the problem. Clothing now is designed in a linear way, we burn or landfill a significant amount. People need to look at the opportunities financially and there is massive opportunity to make money on every level. Theres so much waste, get recycling incentives in place but people would get money for recycling their clothes properly. Were about to enter i suspect a frenzied speculation about what Meghan Markle is going to wear at her wedding when she marries prince harry. Is it healthy that we are so obsessed with the dress. As animals on this planet we are obsessed with strange things. It is ok, some people are obsessed, some people do not even know who youre talking about. It is all relative. I think the main thing isjust to bring a new awareness into the conversation. Maybe she should rent the dress. That would make a big statement, the dress. Im happy to provide some eco options and now viewsnight. And this week we are hearing two very different opinions of the trump presidency. On thursday, well be hearing from a critic of the president , but tonight its a chance for drew liquerman, from republicans overseas uk, to make the case for the defence. There is a difference between liking something, and being addicted to it i like water and drink it several times a day, but im not a waterjunkie. However in some cases there is a fine line between merely wanting something, and yearning for it to fill an acquired chemical need. And heres the thing our attachment to Smartphone Technology appears to be more in the latter category it is actually addictive. You may recognise the problem, but in fact it is not accidentally addictive, it is designed to be so. Because the online world is funded mainly through advertising, those working in it, need to both grab and keep our attention to survive and thrive. Now understanding how Technology Addiction works, may make you more resilient in resisting it. Our Technology EditorDavid Grossman has been finding out more and meeting one former google executive who believes what is known as the attention economy poses a threat to democracy itself. For many of us, reaching for our phones has become automatic. As unthinking as blinking. Sometimes illjust unlock my phone and ill lock it again and i wont even know what ive looked at. All of a sudden i mightjust go on my phone and i will think, i dont even need to go on my phone right now. If im crossing the road i can get distracted by my phone and realise oh wait, theres a car there its as if were driven by a power beyond our conscious actions. Its not sensational to say our brains are being hacked. Because thats pretty much what is happening. Balliol College Oxford was built to withstand the distractions of the pre smartphone age. The heavy wooden doors and castellated quad are fortifications against attention hijack. James williams is a former google executive who became concerned that Silicon Valleys Central Mission is to interrupt our every waking thought. He resigned and now studies at balliol. The way we are monetising most of the information in the world is by distracting people, keeping them from doing what they want to do, rather than helping them do what they want to do. Now, i dont know anybody, ive never met anybody at least, who wants to spend all day on facebook or wants to keep clicking articles all day. If there are people like that, id love to meet them, because id love to understand their mind and their priorities. But you know when you think about the goals that people have for themselves, they tend to be things like, you know the things that when we are on our deathbed we will regret not having done. Like, you know, i want to take that trip with my family or i want to learn how to play piano or, you know, spend more time with friends. These are the real human goals that people have and these are the goals in my mind that technology ought to be helping us pursue. If they dont do that then i dont know what technology is for. Most Technology Companies have another goal. Welcome to the attention economy. Because the internet is funded largely by advertising, Companies Need us glued to their apps, or they dont make money. Today were going to set a new mission. Although facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg maintains that his companys mission is, quote. To bring the world closer together. A couple of weeks ago facebooks first president expressed a very different, even sinister, objective. How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible . And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in awhile. Because someone liked or commented on the photo or post or whatever. And thats going to get you to contribute more content. And thats going to get you, you know, more likes and comments. Its a social validation Feedback Group that, i mean, is exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with because you are exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology. You can see these results in places like this. These students at Bournemouth University have grown up with smartphones. They cant imagine being without them. The relationship i have with my phone is quite intense because i use it like, all the time. I think it is part of my body now. It is always with me. I feel like if i dont have my phone with me, and eve rybodys like, talking about memes, for example, i wouldnt understand the joke or what eve rybodys laughing at because i wasnt on my phone. So how does Technology Hack its way into our brains . According to psychologists, it taps into our neural reward system. We are driven by natural rewards and these kinds of natural rewards are very basic rewards. Food, water, sex. These are the sorts of things that are making us happy on an everyday basis. But with technology, some of these needs are almost being replaced by the kinds of social notifications we may have received, by the Smartphone Technology that we are using. So, you know, these are technological rewards that can be given to us that can trick our brain into having those rewarding moments and to receiving most technological rewards that can make us happy eventually. This is the fundament of our being, though, those motivations you describe, thats the fundamental operating system of our minds, isnt it . Yes. Tapping into our reward system is just the start of the Way Technology is engineered to hold our attention. In the 505 the psychologist b f skinner discovered that pigeons could be made more obsessed with earning rewards if you made those rewards unpredictable. Now that produces in a rat ora pigeon ora monkey and in a man a very high rate of activity. And if you build up, you can get enormous amounts of behaviour out of these organisms for very little pay. You dont need to give them very much to induce a lot of that. Now that is the heart of all gambling devices. Bingo number three. The way apps get you to pull down to refresh the screen is based on skinners work. Its just like a fruit machine. You pull, it whirrs, and you get a variable reward. Sometimes nothing, sometimes you hit the jackpot. There is a whole industry of consultants, of writers, who are basically helping people who are designers draw on this big catalogue of cognable vulnerabilities. And exploit them for the purposes of giving us hope. Keeping us using these products. Another of these vulnerabilities is our brains in built aversion to loss. For example, snapchat shows what it calls streaks. How many days a message chain has gone unbroken. Facebook is now testing a similarfeature. Its all designed to compel you to message. And it works. Its like a fire emoji and then it will be like oh, you have been on a streak for three days and then you want to sort of like compete, like with other people. Oh, how many streaks do you have . And you feel like you have to reply. When it goes low, like youre about to lose the streak, it tells you. So then you feel the need, even if you werent going to message them anyway, or send any pictures, you feel the need to. Smartphones also exploit our brains in built drive to finish things. If you remove the cue that weve reached the end, well, we just keep going. A food psychologist discovered that when a soup bowl was fitted with a hidden tube that kept it topped up, people would drink pints and pints of soup in an effort to finish the bowl. Thats why the twitter and facebook feeds never end. We never get a cue to stop. And its why video sites like youtube and netflix will start the next video even before the one youre watching has finished. Before ive been on my phone watching youtube videos back to back for like, two hours. When you do actually sit down and try and calculate the hours, you realise how much time has been wasted on things that you could have been doing that were productive. Really . You feel like youre. So why dont you stop . I dont know. I dont want to say its an addiction, but ijust need my phone another very powerful way that we are manipulated is in what we watch. The scientists of the attention economy know that our brains are drawn to stories that prompt strong emotions, like outrage. Balanced discussions may appeal to our conscious intellects, but not the subconscious urges that will keep us clicking and scrolling. So that is what we are served, a diet of outrage. And it doesnt matter of the stories are fake or real, they all serve to grab our attention. Even reputable news organisations are having to adapt their coverage to compete. In the 30s a former student of balliol college, aldous huxley, predicted a world where manipulation and destruction combined to create a happy, docile populace incapable of self government. One way of looking at this is that you know, the attention economy is a kind of denial of Service Attack against the human will. And that has big implications in our own lives because there are things we want to do today, this week, this year. It has big political implications because, you know, the will of the people is the basis of the authority of democracy. And if thats being undermined, our political systems, the possibility of democracy is very straightforwardly being undermined. The distraction and manipulation of the attention economy is only going to get more refined and more compelling, and less noticeable. For example, facebook and other big tech firms are investing heavily in virtual reality. So unless we are prepared to change the way we pay for the online world, we could literally lose ourselves in technology. David grossman there. It could be the biggest problem of our time. Im joined by tristan harris. He is co founded the Movement Time well spent to spark an important conversation about the kind of future we want from the Technology Industry and was a design ethicist and product philosopher at google until 2016, where he studied how Technology Influences a billion users attention, well being and behaviour. He was described by the atlantic magazine as the closest thing Silicon Valley has to a conscience. Good evening. I am interested in how much of a problem we should really think this is. You likened it to the slot machines but this isnt going to bankrupt you or kill you in the way that some other drugs do. I wonder whether addiction is quite the right way to look at it. It is much bigger than addiction, i would call it an existential threat to the human race and the reason is because there are 2 billion people who use a smartphone every day, 2 billion people use facebook, that is more than a number of followers of christianity, these Tech Companies have more influence over our daily thoughts and some religions given that we check our phones 150 times a day. The total surface area of how Much Technology is steering 2 billion people and their thoughts is enormous, even when you are not looking at your phone, it is implementing or creating the kind of thought youre thinking about now. The challenge is as james said and we were allies at google in trying to raise this conversation, is that these companies goals are fundamentally misaligned with our goals and the goals of democracy. That is why it is an existential threat. It is not an existential threat, you need to find the harm it is doing. Yes, we are wasting quite a lot of time, yes we are sometimes misdirected to rubbish when we would have Better Things to do with our lives, but talking about existential threats, you need to say what actual harm it is doing to all those people who choose to use their phones in this way. I would ask in the 150 times a day will recheck, what is going on in that moment right before we check. Is it because we are sitting there and we a conscious choice and that is not what is happening, what is happening is that we are building up anxieties and as it builds, it causes us to self interrupt. We actually interrupt ourselves about every a0 seconds. We are complicit in this process, we can, smoking addicts will tell you it is very difficult to stop smoking and lock the cigarettes in a cupboard but if youre fed up with your phone and you want some uninterrupted time, you put the phone away or you turn it off. It is not that difficult. The reason we dont is because we like getting stuff on the phone and it connects us and we get a reward from it, dont we . We get enormous benefits from these Technology Companies, i think the challenges is that their goals are not aligned with ours. The one you mentioned, you have 100 million teenagers, a vulnerable population and you are basically saying, for each one of your friends, it shows the number of days in a row you have sent messages back and forth, it is like putting them on treadmills and time their legs together, they both have to keep running otherwise they lose their streak. It is like we have hijacked what100 million teenagers view as the currency of friendship, the way kids know if they are friends is if they keep that streak up. That is where we are developmentally harming an entire generation of children. That is one of the clearest examples where it is notjust addiction. A lot of parents would say, i would stop my child doing that. What do you do . Are you an addict . Do you feel you have controlled the destruction of your phone . No. I havent and i think one of the things that we said when we talk to all these experts in Provision Technology is that even if you know how these techniques work, it still works on you. Youre sitting inside of this suit, all of these instincts that are getting close, if you wake up in the morning and you see photos of yourfriends missing out, youre missing out on what they were doing last night, that will pull on any human being, you can be the director of the cia and that will affect you. We are all human. This is about whether or not the goals of technologies align with that. Thank you. Thats all weve got time for this evening. But before we go, we bring you news of an exciting new film with a soundtrack by the composer michael nyman. Its called washing machine the movie, and it consists of sixty six minutes of a particular brand of washing machine going through its forty degree wash cycle accompanied by a specially composed minimalist soundtrack by mr nyman. The movie will premiere in Leicester Square next month but weve managed to get you a sneak peak. Good night. Piano plays. Well, good evening to you. If today was too cold for you, i dont think you are going to like what i have got to tell you about for the next couple of days. If anything, it is going to get a little bit cold. Northerly winds coming all the way down from the arctic, right across the british isles. Strong winds at times. Feeding colder in our direction and wintry showers. Showers through tonight across northern and eastern scotland, down the eastern side of england. Thejoe out west as well. At low levels, most of the showers falling on to rain. As we go into tomorrow morning, there could be issues with ice. Take it easy if youre commute is across the northern half of scotland. Further south, it is across the northern half of scotland. Furthersouth, it should be dry but cold. Temperatures around freezing at eight oclock. The odd shower into northern ireland. Showers trickling in across the eastern side of england. Mostly falling as rain. Over any high ground you are likely to see sleet and snow mixed in with the showers. The midlands, wales, much of the south west, drier cold as we start of the morning. The jailfor west wales and down into cornal bestial as continue to trickle through into cornwall. Showers increasingly wintry over hills. A loss of sunshine as well. Just 3 seven degrees. A widespread frost. Notice the haze of blue. Wintry showers towards the north east. As we move out a wednesday and into thursday, this area of low pressure will try to squash in from the east. That will squeeze the isobars together. It means the wind will get stronger. Windy across the east coast of scotla nd windy across the east coast of scotland and england. We will see showers. Even at fairly low levels the showers could bring some snow. Sunshine elsewhere. This is what you can expect it to do you like on thursday afternoon. Subzero in many northern and eastern areas. The focus for wintry showers will be across the far south east. The amount of sunshine. Another chilly day. This band of showery rain will bring something of a change as we move into the weekend. Something milder. The temperature is perhaps into double digits by the time we get into sunday. A lot of cloud, patchy rain, a lot of dry weather. That brief for a into something milder probably is not going to last very long. Newsday looks at the international news. Tomorrow morning, joint Business Life for Global Business news that is from nine a. M. This is news to a on the bbc. I am rico hizon in singapore. Our top stories north korea testifies another plastic missile. Us officials believe it could be the highest and furthest flight yet. The pope is in myanmar but he still has not yet said anything about the polite of the ranges. Of the rohingyas. Also in this programme, we will from those forced to leave their homes in the shadow of the volcano, mount adelong. And we lifted the earth, now we are doing the same in space. Could this galactic garbage collector to get rid of our