and they were nothing out of ordinary. i was looking forward to it. initially, it was really good. we got on very well. he had a really good sense of humour. he liked music. so we went out quite a bit. so later in the evening, i found myself alone with him. it hadn't been my intention at all to be alone with him. but with the high turnaround of people at a party, it happened and it was then he put his hand on my back and forced me into the bathroom and that's where he continued. that is where he raped me. he stood as close as he could physically be to me. his entire body was almost pressed up against my back and i noticed something that i think is the back of a hand perhaps, pushed up against my bum. i think as we were, the longer we were together, the more comfortable he got with putting me down. he would call me an idiot. he would swear. he would tell me i was stupid. tell me i was thick. and i stopped eating at the dinner table eventually, because he used to tell me i was a pig and i ate like a pig. it is a cross between emotions of feeling almost embarrassed and dirty, this feeling of, oh god, i can't believe this happened to me, that someone has seen me and seen me as a target and at the end you almost feel a little bit guilty, where you think, someone pressed their body against mine, the hand ran over my bum, but i wasn't raped and there is that guilt as well. so you almost don't know how to handle the emotion. what happens is it happens so slowly over a period of time that itjust chip, chip, chips away at who you are as a person, until i looked in the mirror and i was just unrecognisable to myself. ijust wasn't me. in a couple of months, then the police said there wasn't enough evidence to continue. in most cases it is a "he says, she says" situation. upon hearing this, workjust reinstated us back and i had to kick up a real fuss to make sure we didn't work together. when he came back on to his shift, a couple male members of staff came up to him, shook his hand, welcomed him back, said it was good to have him back. i don't want to have every day remembering a time when i was groped on the tube by a man that i had never seen before and obviously don't find that sort of behaviour acceptable. i remember one day when i was in bed and i couldn't do anything, ijust couldn't get up and my daughter came in, she was only five. she came in and she didn't say anything, she just climbed in the bed beside me and gave me a hug. and i think she must have known. there is so much that just changed after that. i lost a lot of friends, because they didn't know what to say to me, how to respond. a lot of my guy friends just didn't know what to do. you just wonder if you're ever going to find a sense of normality, just have a relationship again. it wasn't until it was highlighted to me that i looked back and thought, "oh my god, all this time, all this time and i didn't even see it." i don't think much or enough is being done to handle this. especially when over half your population in london are female, something needs to be done to make them feel safer, because i don't. good evening. tonight, we want to reflect on an age—old problem, sex, power, abuse and allegations. the defence secretary resigned tonight. he chose not to apologise. are we redefining what we're prepared to put up with? and how do we feel about calling people "guilty" in such a vocal, public way? we have a panel of speakers, and a lively audience of 12 men. much to come then, but first evan and your thoughts on the problem with men. "all men are rapists." it's an old trope, from a character in a feminist novel called the women's room. it's of course an absurd exaggeration if the word "rape" is to have its usual meaning. not all men are rapists. however, a very large number do think about women, or men and sex a lot of the time. it's a powerful motivator and although it is sometimes unfashionable to invoke biology when it comes to explaining human action, there is something rather animal about how men often behave. in fact, it's because it is so animal we have social codes to restrain that behaviour. perhaps the reason why the weinstein scandal has been so potent is that it is where the basest of instincts meet the most sophisticated of human creations — law and culture. there are flashing images coming up in this film. it is far too simplistic to say male mammals are more aggressive and have their way with women when they like. nature delivers a variety of mating strategies. but it is true that with many animals males gained evolutionary benefits from fighting with each other or coercing females into mating. that is less true of females. there are even some species where some females mimic males to avoid continual harassment. it also has to be said that in most mammals, including us, males have higher testosterone levels the females, and this may incline them to be more aggressive. don't worry, i'm not going to use any of this to exonerate men oi’ argue they cannot help themselves, it is just nature. that is not my point, not even close. the key insight is a lot has been said about how men exploit their power in order to serve their craving for sex and women. but you could argue it is the other way round. they crave power because it makes it easier to exploit women get sex. that is the animal side of the problem, strong urges, dominant men. how do humans deal with this? there are societies where men are barely restrained at all. the tiny british colony of pitcairn seemed to be like this, a population measured in tens. in the early 2000s it hit a crisis. according to court testimony, rape was a way of life. half the adult men faced charges of sexual offences. but that is the exception. most societies develop a code of social behaviour. in the tory in britain it is about dressing females in ways which would excite less animal passion from humans. —— in victorian britain. covering up the ankles, for example. and then women get the blame when men are aroused. but the other problem is men face penalty for non—restraint and that is clearly where western societies are striving — or supposedly striving today. our current system is not working well because to punish sexually aggressive men you have to catch them, and we don't, because victims have very good reasons not to report them. you might say what is happening at the moment is a recalibration of our social rules in two ways. firstly, around what is considered socially acceptable behaviour, and secondly, in reducing the stigma for those who call it out. tonight, we have had a cabinet resignation, the most tangible sign yet which shows how things are changing post weinstein. when michael fallon resigned, he said what might have been acceptable ten or 15 years ago is clearly not acceptable now. new responsibilities are being imposed, men have to live up to the standards as site now expects. apologies for reducing a rich seam of evolutionary biology to that two minute treatment, but it mayjust offer a guide as to what we're up against. another sign of how deep it runs, i had an e—mail earlier today from someone i know well, who described an astonishing piece of inappropriate behaviour that occurred this morning. quite surprising that predators have not taken a pause during this season of news frenzy on the topic. i should say of course, that we tend to talk of this as a man—woman issue. but it's been conspicuous in the last month just how much chatter there is about men harassing other men. it's different to harassment of women, but similar. but, for this evening, we'll focus on male—female issues. so does everyone know what sexual abuse looks like? once we thought we did. now it's not so clear. the boundaries have definitely shifted. and men are having to learn what they look like. so are men now changing their behaviour? and is it making all our work relationships really awkward? let's ask our men. i would like to ask you first if you think you have changed your behaviour in recent weeks since some of these allegations came out? who would say they have changed their behaviour? terence, what have you noticed? i have noticed that you have to change your behaviour with women the way you touch them or put your arm around them or the way you look at them, to be honest. years ago used to be able to laugh with women, joke with them but now... and you do not laugh with women any more? you do but not as much. you use to put your arms around them and you cannot do that no more. do you agree? i don't understand why it is appropriate to dutch study when you're having a laugh and joke with someone. physical bodily contact when it is uninitiated is wrong and it has always been wrong. the fact that people are talking about it doesn't change anything. when you say it is wrong, do you ask permission to put your hand on somebody‘s shoulder or touch their elbow? there is no reason to touch you. what does it add? does anyone still like that? i think it is time for a complete rethink by men and women. i'll give you an example. just last sunday i was at church. and now, whereas normally i am a fairly lovable easy—going character, now i wait for women to come to me, and they invariably want to kiss me on the cheek and give me a hug, it is a friendly thing. so you will not make the first approach now? no. oh no, crikey no. who is worried to make the first tactile of physical approach to women. you are the only one. john, you're looking at me. this thing of pc has gone to such an extreme nowadays. what do you mean by that? what is correct, what is the margin, what is the boundary. i am not entirely convinced that i am ever going to change being friendly to somebody and if i know that person well enough, that i'm quite happy to give them a cuddle, hug, whatever the word is. a lot of the younger men are quite silent in this point. i'm going to bring you in. do you find it confusing? is it a grey area or is it obvious? i think most of the time it is fairly obvious. sometimes i have stepped into the grey area and when i have seen someone is uncomfortable i have apologised and said, i should not have done that, and you gain an understanding. when he said there is no reason to touch someone if you aren't invited to, i suppose a lot of people you are used to thinking, physical contact is natural and whatnot. when we say if there is no invitation, you don't have any reason to touch someone, for example, if someone drops something and i have to call them out and they couldn't hear me, so if i touch them, am i committing sexual harassment? come on. have we lost our sense of common sense in all of this? completely. to the veryjagged line. some of the older gentlemen are agreeing with that. tom, what was your sense? i feel it is so it's second nature. i'm 21. i have grown up where it is so obvious to me, i struggle to see a lot of the other opinions about how... the whole idea ofjust being friendly with someone and feeling the need to touch them, for me, that is not the case. it's literally — i don't need to do that. ijust have a conversation. so you never touch your friends? you never feel the need to reach out and touch your friends? it is fine if it is a no. in some contexts i suppose. you do touch your friends. you're saying what tom said is alien? what are they afraid of? i was going to say, whether or not you touch a friend, be it a male or female friend depends on the context, whether you have done before, whether they have touched you. if you just want to give them a hug or kiss or touch them for the first time, maybe you touch them on the arm. evan, you have some data on this. now, social attitudes as to the boundaries matter on these issues and we have polling evidence of what attitudes are at the moment. a yougov eurotrack survey taken in the last two weeks asked people about some specific behaviours and whether they always or usually constitute sexual harassment, if a man who was not a romantic partner or friend, did them to a woman. there are some things that almost everybody agrees are harassment — trying to take a photograph up a woman's skirt, 96%. requesting sexual favours — 92% say that's harassment. pinching or grabbing a woman's bum — that's 91%. at the other end, there are several things that are widely seen not to be sexual harassment. commenting on a woman's attractiveness — just 16% thought that was always or usually harassment. winking at a woman —13%. asking for a drink — just 3% thought that harassment. but in some ways the most interesting areas are those where the public have no dominant view. the middle ones. looking at a woman's breasts — 50% think that is harassment. wolf whistling — 38%. and a man placing his hand on a woman's lower back — 37% think that is harassment. in the poll — there do seem to be some grey zones. who thinks looking at a woman's breast is harassment. you're the only one shaking your head. it depends on the context. we are not talking about in bed with your partner. if you're in a lift and there is two of you there and you stare at her breasts that is harassment. if you're on a dance floor it is different. it depends on how women present themselves to men. here we are in 2017, men and women have seriously got to rethink all over again... who agrees with that and thinks it up to woman to relook at how they think. no. you think it is about women? go on tell me what you think. just exactly what he said to be honest. you're breathing very heavily. i'm going to bring you in. i can't believe we're victim—blaming, we don't train our boys to dress appropriately. —— train our girls to dress appropriately. we train our boys not to rape them. it is no about harassment, it is more about respect, i think respect comes into this a lot. staring at a woman's parts when you're talking to her is, because you wouldn't. .. a man couldn't talk to another man and look at an inappropriate part of his body. what about wolf whistling or the hand on the back. to disrespect somebody is harassment. you're not saying it is not harassment. but it is not the same stuff. i didn't say it is not disrespect. you're doing it in a way that makes you feel better. it is the same masculine strap. by not respecting a woman doesn't make it any better or more acceptable. if somebody disrespects you, does it make it acceptable? you respect a woman in the first place you wouldn't need to look at her down there. who about confusion with a action who, has put a hand on a woman's back without thinking about it. would you now think about that in a different light when you have seen the data. yes, definitely. you wouldn't do that and john, you say... i would continue as i've always done in the context of depending on how friendly you are with the person and i'm not talking about the queen you know? we will pause at that moment. i think the panel has a lot to say. we will be back. let me introduce our panel here — experts and commentators who have been thinking harder about this than most of us. laura bates, the founder of the everyday sexism project, shelagh fogarty lbc presenter, musicianjordan stephens one half of the band rizzle kicks, writer and commentator neil lyndon the author of no more sex war and journalist eliza anyangwe. it was interesting what michael fallon said when he resigned, he said what was acceptable 15 or 10 years ago is no longer acceptable now. that implication is the rules have changed. eliza, you were shaking your head, they were always the same? what has changed is what people can get a pat on the back for having done, can get promotions, i think we have framed the discussion inaccurately. this is about power and the way people use power. whether or not a male friend touches me on my shoulder is inconsequential, and to make men feel they have to walk around women and our exercising of our voice, of speaking up about victimhood is something joe public needs to be fearful of women for. that is not what the conversation is about. when we look at weinstein, he has abused his power and has preyed on vulnerable women and that is wrong. laura, the conversation has gone beyond weinstein to quite a lot of these everyday interactions, everyday sexism, that is not rape and it often is touching of knees and things, it is quite different. i think it is important to say that actually the very serious abuses, very serious assault, rape are every day. that is the important thing. we have seen this outpouring of accusations of women's experience, why are we asking if it is ok to touch a woman on the elbow. 12 million women around the world have spoken out about their experiences and i guarantee you go and have a look at them, you won't find one saying is i'm outraged someone touched me on the elbow. this is reframing the conversation. we are talking about serious abuses. am i confused, i think the conversation has got to more of the obviously not touching an elbow accidentally, the conversation has got to interactions that are much less serious than harvey weinstein's one. the extreme ones have opened up a conversation i think you're right is is about power and serious things are everyday things. but i think you're opening film was interesting, the woman talking about the assault on the tube and the man groping her backside, that is the kind of every day approach by a total stranger, this was not a party where a colleague was drunk and inappropriate and you could tackle it, that has happened to me and he said sorry and that was fine. but that, what struck me as interesting, why i don't think it isjust about male power and just about male behaviour, i think women have to have a discussion in their own minds and with each other about what they do when it happens. it is alien to me the idea i would be on a tube and a stranger would feel me up and i would do nothing. i would react. we are going to come to that calling out subject in the second half of the programme. neil, back to my first question, have the rules changed, because really i think a lot of people say the rules have always been as clear as anything. you know what you can do and can't do? the rules remain the same, they have always been the same. but everything has changed. everything changed at the point of the contraceptive revolution. and that caused the social changes which have brought a flood of women into the work place, into higher education at all levels of society. that is the key. if you set this conversation in evolutionary terms, you have to look at that essential point of change. what is remarkable about the changes that have occurred in the last 50 years is how harmoniously they have been conducted and our misfortune in the last 50 years is it has been framed in terms of a totalitarianism of the 19th century as if men impose their power on women and that is the only interpretation of our relationships. your point is men have acquiesced. they have consented. there is patriarchy, as a black woman in britain, there is that and racism and issues that, where power is exercised over women. jordan? i like for me, ijust don't understand why we are in a situation where we are not questioning why men even questioning how to treat another human being with any kind of respect and decency. it is a lack of compassion that is found from having... it is bizarre to question how to interact with another human being. what do you think causes it? you have talked of toxic masculinity. i think the patriarchy that is a way of... of showing weakness and sadness gets pent up which abuse power and the patriarchy makes ways of object if s object faying women. —— of objectifying women which needs to not happen. you raised the issue of calling out. we will turn to that now. many victims have shared their experiences on social media. many men have now been named and shamed on those same sites. so are we happy with this public court ofjustice — is that where the power now lies? we'll talk about calling out the perpetrators in a moment. where it works and where it goes wrong. first, have a watch. hi. hello. let's get you sat down. 0k. i have got over here ready. navigating the work place is challenging for some. tell me about yourself. i took a year out and went exploring. exploring yourself? and asia. and let's face it, david brent wouldn't have been such a hit if he hadn't been a familiar prototype of those we have known. but if the etiquette of real life behaviour is becoming clearer there are virtual spaces that have no rules. we are making that stuff up as we go along. sharing sites have been extraordinarily powerful in bringing together those who suffered humiliation or worse in a form where they can find support. did rose mcgowan have any idea what she was unleashing, naming harvey weinstein. i have been silent for 20 years. i have been slut—shamed. 0thers offered their experiences in a tweet. 0ne talked of a sexual assault and inspired half a million hits injust21i hours. some used the slogan to share their own, others to show solidarity. the calling out of abuse is long over due, but it is opening up a grey area. 0ne person's catharsis becomes another‘s witch—hunt. those speaking out expect to be believed, so are all those publicly named guilty? are we asking twitter to become judge and jury? and what of what's app and the groups sharing perpetrator‘s names with no ramification. don't forget david brent is called out. i would say at one time or another every bloke in the office has woken up at the crack of dawn. what dawn might tell her friends in the pub, but would she call a national newspaper? that is what twitter has the power to do now. are we happy with that? 0k, well this gets straight into a debate about this issue of reporting. 0n the one hand, calling out has clearly become a feature of the last two weeks. but it's also interesting there is still a reticence on the part of many victims, to name the perpetrators. let's talk to the panel. shelagh, you brought this up, is it still difficult to have this conversation? i found it was difficult for me to have this conversation on air with naomi wolf the feminist author. i was so excited to be interviewing her and when i talked about what women need to do in response in both individual cases and the wider discussion we need to have, straightaway she very anxiously said, you are victim blaming and this is bothering me so our conversation went in a different direction. the conversation i was aiming to have and really feel passionate about is, women need as individuals and as groups and in the workplace, need to be able to know what to do, who to call, what to say, to be safe when they do so, to have a proper structure when it happens, but it has to begin inside them. it really pains me when i hear young women in particular saying ifeel shame when this happened to me. i have neverfelt personal shame when someone has crossed the line with me. i have made them know they have done something wrong. that is not to say, well, aren't i great? that something i have in my upbringing and allows me to feel it is absolutely their shame and they should be named, i should not be shamed and its structures around that confident that has to be built around i think. laura, you were shaking your head a little bit there. i think we are looking at this completely the wrong way. it is not about health under the response or what to do in response it is about stopping it happening in the first place. it has to be both. actually no, it doesn't. we do not matter how we will respond in that situation. they are talking about a power differential. it might be somebody at the beginning of their career. we might think i will do this or that but then wish at down in panic. when we talk about this in a particular way and women do not feel able to do so, they feel they do something wrong. i do not mean to make people feel they have done something wrong. it pains me that when i say that if it is interpreted as me shaming blaming women or shifting the focus from men, it isn't. it is about saying if the culture is going to respond to this, everyone in that culture has to have a voice. it seems that the naming of the perpetrators is stopping them from doing it. neil, what do you think about how we stop this or how we make it easier to call it out and catch people who are doing the wrong thing? it does seem that the weinstein scandal and subsequent revelations tend to reveal a rather dramatic failure of parenting going on. i think parents need to tell their girls, their daughters, like for one of the weinstein occasions, he was banging on an actress's door in the middle of the night, he was drunk. i think she should know that you don't let a man in. sorry, no! i don't think you can navigate life from cradle to grave without experiencing a road traffic accident or encountering a serious illness and you cannot avoid unpleasant sexual experience. what? no no no no no! it is absolutely ridiculous that you have chosen the parenting issue of the girl inside the room who is vulnerable. the idea is there is an abuse of power from a man who has got to that stage. there is an issue with men. the reason why this is a crisis is because the patriarchy he does not allow... it's not a patriachy. don't let him in. for a man to turn up at a woman's door... don't let him in, call security. and don't go to another meeting with him! this goes back to the idea of biology. just because you raise your voice does not mean you are right. analyser. the point that you are making is put the responsibility of the girl to use her voice, that is what you are saying, right? what you are asking for is you negate the structural reasons why a girl would be silenced. even if she wants to, gold does not want to use her voice and her own community will silence her. don't all speak together. that is why i said it is notjust the person, it has to be procedural and structural so there is support when someone speaks out. this is not to negate what men are doing. it is to protect us when it happens. and i am explaining why it comes across wrong. when you say the individual is all you hear that responsibility lies with that one person. the woman who accused dominique strauss kahn, where was the community around her? there was no... i want to hear jordan's view on this. this balance of responsibility. i think, i cannot stray from the idea that it is a serious lack of compassion and personal understanding, it is mad to me that we are questioning why someone would think it was ok to step into someone's personal space and that is something that happens. it's not. it's not ok. i have got to speak about this biology idea, it is not about biology, it is not about sex, it is not something that inherently all men cannot control. how insulting to the vast majority of men. this is deliberate, it is often criminal, it is meant choosing to assault and harass women. we should focus on them and not suggest it is an inherent biological trait. we will take this back to the audience now. are you pleased to see women speaking out on these public forums? do you think it is a force for good or a force for bad? in my opinion, what social media does is it is showing us transparency. it is showing that this is happening. it is unpleasant but it is exposing a system which has always been there. it does mean we are confronted with more things that we think, this is messed up, it is horrible, how did we let this happen? as i said this previously, time for a rethink. not being one to bible bash, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. amen. it is dangerous with the social media because as we have seen over recent years, that has been a number of innocent men who have gone through hell because their names have been released by vindictive females. how do you know they are vindictive? there is one case in particular which comes to light, one woman in particular had seven or eight men sent to prison. she had accused each one of raping her before she was found to be a compulsive liar. one man had done eight years. you are talking about a very specific case. do people feel that social media, facebook, twitter, whatsapp is acting like a public court? the problem with social media is you advocate responsibility. you make a tweet or write something and that is done. you can create an anonymous profile, people follow you. so what should women do? women have been having these grievances, they have sat on them, then they come out and write about them on social media or different sites, what should happen then? if it is crime which has been committed, because there are plenty of legislation in place to protect women, if some feels that they have been harassed, they have been treated inappropriately or attacked or whatever, there is illegal because for them to call the police and get them involved. 30 years ago, it was custom and practice for a man to knock his wife about. domestic violence was done to the carpet. —— swept under. but that has not been changed by calling the police, it has been changed by public opinion saying it will not be tolerated. the law changed. i think one way could be solved is looking for the nondisclosure agreement. if there is a sexual violence case more than once, the nondisclosure case should not be upheld. in away that would allow the victim to carry on... let me bring this back to this evening where we started the show with the resignation of one cabinet minister, for something, he did not explain what, but something which happened in the past. is it right that men should now be resigning for actions which happened in the past, he says in a different culture? yes. absolutely yes. completely agree. the panel all agrees. they should face the consequences. and if we see a raft of resignations right across the board, that is a good thing? yes. women need to take appropriate action, if they feel they have been harassed or offended. why are you always putting the onus on women? we should be educating men about what is acceptable and what is not. i went to an all boys school. we were not properly told what we should and should not be doing. i don't disagree with you. we as a group of men are trying to define what women are feeling. we cannot do that. we cannot talk for women. it is utterly impossible. why are we trying to say what is harassment? why are we not asking victims of rape and harassment? have women got to be more resilient with how they deal with cases of sexual harassment or would you say now, it is all to do with our behaviour as men? you would say your behaviour. in the majority of cases where the man is known to the woman, such as a family member, friend, work colleague or something, a simple no is usually enough. depending on the offence. i do know what you're saying but i do think that it absolutely has to begin with the offending behaviour of the man. when i talk about empowering a woman, if you want to call it that, that is an add—on to this discussion but it is central to it. you are right, no man can speak for women generally but no woman can speak for women generally. every person should be allowed to say what happened to them and how they stopped and the thing i am passionate about achieving is that they have a structure and support which works for them. back to the idea of social media, there is a great transparency in the way victims are feeling, we would not be having this discussion if it had not been for things which have come through twitter. so a last thought, do you think this is now something which has changed irrevocably or will this hit a peak and quietly fade away? who think something has fundamentally changed in the waters now? i just want to say from a male perspective, the male suicide rate is through the roof and adhd is more current in men. we are suppressing our motion, we are not creating forces —— our emotion, we are not creating forces in the male community to be open and honest and caring and nurturing with each other, or, because we have a society which mocks men for being weak and vulnerable and that needs to change. do you know what, we need to leave it there. we have devoted this one programme to this topic but i have a feeling we will do it every day for the next of months. there is agreement between the sexes and plenty of battles between the sexes as well. thank you to our panel of commentators. kirsty will be here tomorrow. thank you for watching. good night. the cn. i am afraid there was no fairness in the weather across the british isles through wednesday. for some, it was a glorious day. —— good evening once again. by showing you this i am rubbing it in again, perhaps particularly for scotland, where it has really rated these areas for a while. —— really reined in. —— rained. behind this fog, actually suffer the north of england, scotland, and northern ireland. but the good news is that there will be a fair amount of dry weather and some sunshine around as well. you might have forgotten what that looks like in parts of scotland. northern ireland joining into the party as well. one or two showers bumping into the yorkshire coast. in the cloud will keep the temperature ‘s first thing. but where the skies were clear, it could be dense fog. they could even be the odd patch lingering into the morning. but you get a sense that away from the old remnants of the front in the south, there will be a decent date in prospect. that does nothing for the temperatures in scotla nd nothing for the temperatures in scotland and ireland. nine — ten, 11 degrees or so. something similar in the first part of friday. that weather front taking time to arrive in the far north—west of scotland. things will be fairly settled in the south. that will be the conditions forfog south. that will be the conditions for fog patches. rai south. that will be the conditions forfog patches. rai weather on friday with just some rain may be running in interview of the wealth of the north—west of england. that latter ramble eventually rocked —— that and a bramble rocker bindu scotland. they will be exacerbated through the weekend as the wind eventually gets into the north—west, and that imports cold air. however, it will take a while until we said in the south—eastern quarter of the british isles. the weatherfront here will have someone about them. there is escaping that for the good pa rt there is escaping that for the good part of saturday for many. elsewhere, says wilson showers. that winds out on sunday, but the temperatures will get because of that wind. lots going on. all the details are on the website. i'm rico hizon in singapore, the headlines the new york truck attack aftermath. the uzbek suspect is charged with terrorism sayfullo saipov had 90 violent is videos on his phones and had been planning the attack for two months. president trump demands tougher immigration laws. what we have right now is a joke. it's a laughing stock and no wonder that so much of this stuff takes place. i'm babita sharma in london. also in the programme. embarrassing and horrible. trump makes clear his view of america's trading relations with china, days before his tour of asia. and on the last full day of prince charles' visit to singapore, he reveals he's no slouch when it comes