but president trump's style is to deploy mood swings as a diplomatic tool as well — he uses exaggerated rhetoric, from angry fire and fury, to sweet messages of respect. and he does so while offering big carrots at the same time as wielding huge sticks. so where are we left now? threats, bluffs? has trump scored a success by offering talks and at least getting three hostages home? or humiliated himself? when the talks were announced, our reporterjohn sweeney was sceptical that they would get far. here's his assessment now. donald trump and kim jong—un are both big, brash men, adored by their followers, ridiculed by their enemies. this coin was minted to show their other side, that both could talk peace. today, that fell apart. the trumpster delivered the news in a letter which is so extraordinary, that some suspect the president may even have written it himself. it's by turns melancholic... i was very much looking forward
to being there with you. sadly... bristling with menace... you talk about your nuclear capabilities, but ours are so massive and powerful that i pray to god they will never have to be used. and at times, almost weepy. this missed opportunity is a truly sad moment in history. the language in donald trump's letter was also very interesting. it read to me as if it had been dictated. it didn't appear to have any sort of editing or filter put on it. it was almost as if it had been said, don't edit this, get this out now. it does have some very interesting things in it. very punchy language about the us nuclear weapons in quite blunt style. but then this slightly strange concession at the end, which talks about how good kim had been in releasing us captives. squared with the american
fear of same. what is surprising and worrying is that the south koreans don't appear to have been informed in advance of this us decision. considering that alliance is really one of the two critical alliances for the us in the region, that really is slightly concerning. given that china is really critical in the us maximum pressure strategy, sanctions enforcement and so on, keeping them on side with this is really quite important. why would they feel the need now to comply with us demands to squeeze north korea when they see a us that doesn't, from their perspective, follow through on commitments? is it possible we are now in a worse situation than we were before these talks between donald trump and kim jong—un were even suggested? well, the north koreans could say listen, we handed over the hostages
and we demolished our nuclear enrichment facility, only to be so very publicly humiliated by donald trump, and that's not good. to be fair to the americans, it's widely believed that north korea has more nuclear facilities hidden away. the world is waiting for north korea's response. in the meantime, one has to wonder, is this donald trump the author of the art of the deal on top form, or a fool who's bungled the last chance for peace on the korean peninsula? with me now from florida is political strategist and trump supporter mica mosbacher. mica is on the trump 2020 national advisory board. from washington is jarrett blanc who is a senior fellow at the carnegie endowment for international peace. good evening to you. just a brief comment on the letter itself, this vehicle for delivering a message.
what did you make of it, mica? bits of it were even ungrammatical. it's very interesting. first of all, it's striking that he released this message to the media. president trump is showing transparency in this process. secondly, this is not quintessentially trump. first of all, the letter is very conciliatory in tone, crafted, and notice that he did not... we seem to be having problems with that line to florida. can i ask you the same question, jarrett. it's a very peculiar letter, as you reported at the top, there seems to be some almost romantic undertones to it. at the same time, there is a repetition of the threat for global thermonuclear war. i'm not sure that conciliatory is the phrase i would use to describe it. let's look at how trump
has handled this. should he have called the talks off? you think they never should have started, but presumably you think they should have been called off. credit where it is due, it was the right decision to call off the talks and it's good president trump was able to divest himself sufficiently from the process to do so. the problem here is not the decision not to proceed with poorly prepared talks, where the parties were not on the same page in terms of the outcome. the problem was with how the talks were rolled out to begin with. mica, we were talking about the letter, and you said it was conciliatory. jarrett didn't think it was like that because it had that nuclear threat in it. moving on, you were a supporter of these talks happening. are you a supporter now they have been abandoned? absolutely, notice the talks have stalled out prior to the comment that vice president mike pence had
made, and watching the senior north korean official reacting strongly against it. he discussed comparing north korea with libya. he was referring to the fact that in 1986 there was certainly an isolationist approach. libya managed to isolate itself both from the uk and united states. under colonel gaddafi there was civil unrest requiring nato come in and intervene militarily. trump is coming from a position of strength. the president understands the only way to deal with an enemy is not back down. i personally think these talks will carry on. i think this is a temporary postponement, not a permanent cancellation. also see the secretary of state mike pompeo said today when he was testifying on congressional hill, that they had been ready,
able and willing to go forward with these talks, but the north koreans were not cooperating in terms of certain information they were requesting. so president trump at this point felt he needed to exert his leverage to send a clear message to north korea, the door is open, but we need an attitude adjustment, if you will, if we are going to reset and carry forward with the talks. jarrett, mica has made a good attempt to rationalise the process from where we were to where we are now. i know you don't believe the process has been rationally managed or conducted, but do you see any credit in a slightly capricious, almost unnerving behaviour by president trump? does that have the possibility of extracting gains from time to time, such as the release of three hostages, for example. bluntly, i think no, i think capricious behaviour from the president of the united states has no advantage.
i praise the administration's ability to get the three hostages out. i will not go down the rabbit hole of criticising the other party for getting hostages out. this is a north korean tactic, they took three hostages and released them. this is not the end of the game for north korea. do you think there is any harm that has been done? the whole process of saying we will have talks and then abandoning them, are we back to square one, back to the beginning, or somewhere worse than we were three months ago? the situation is very different in the sense that three months ago kim jong—un was totally isolated. he couldn't even get a meeting with the chinese. now he has been to china twice, he has spoken to south korea, he will have a meeting with the russians. it is clear china has let up the economic pressure and that will not change as a result of the us cancelling the summit. so kim jong—un has his
arsenal and repaired some of the ties to his patrons. so the us is in a weaker position. there is the possibility though that kim jong—un could play this smart and maintain the moratorium of testing on nuclear weapons. you are describing a huge victory for kim jong—un there. an incredible description of what is happening, mica? you are shaking your head. first of all, look at what has happened in the last three administrations when we basically appeased kim jong—un. noticed there have been no nuclear tests since september of 2017, and that is progress. president trump has allocated $700 billion to enhance the military. we have military
exercises going forward. mcmaster has stated we have a military option. i go back to the letter. it was very carefully crafted in such a way that it showed sensitivity in tone, and i don't know if my line cut out when i made the point that he did not hurl insults at kim jong—un. i think we have made tremendous progress just coming to the table to negotiate, and i would say once again that we have an expression in texas, don't mess with texas, and don't mess with president trump. don't mess with trump. is the world closer to what one might call an accidental conflagration? and this might be the cost of a more capricious diplomacy, that accidents are more likely to happen. is that correct, jarrett? one thing to say quickly, i think the reason kim jong—un
stopped testing is the reason he successfully tested a thermonuclear device and didn't need to do any more. in answer to your question, right now the world is in kim jong—un's hands. that's not a comfortable place to be because he can raise and lower the temperature. i would have preferred not to have ceded initiative to him. thank you both very much. it's a row that's been rumbling for months now — in fact for over a year. britain, brexit and galileo. galileo is a satellite navigation system — a european version of gps. it's costing about ten billion euros — much of it's up and running already, and much of that is down to british companies. but the eu says a non—eu member can't have access to the encrypted part of the system, or the sensitive contracts. the european commission line is that this is the just the rules. what did you expect if you leave? but rules can sometimes be altered when expediency demands, and there does appear to be some division within the eu on the hardball approach. the british meanwhile are threatening to pull
their technology out of galileo, and to build their own system. before we look at whether that is credible, here's our political editor, nick watt. space — the final frontier. location for multiple cinematic cliches and the venue for the next war, we were recently warned, and now, a rather more local dispute is playing out in the heavens. britain is to be excluded from secure elements of the european galileo satellite navigation system, prompting a warning that the uk could go it alone, and today britain, which has provided around a quarter of the scientific expertise said theresa may's offer of a unilateral commitment to european security is now conditional on unrestricted access to galileo. the row over the uk's involvement
in galileo goes to the heart of the brexit negotiations. the european commission, with the support of some but not all member states cannot hope to be fully involved in such a sensitive project after its decision to leave the eu. the uk says that brussels should show more flexibility because it provides vital financial and logistical support for the project. and there, in a nutshell, are the brexit battle lines. the uk wants to cut a special deal with the eu, whilst the european commission is proving a stickler for the rules. brussels has achieved a goal that has eluded theresa may. it has united the two sides of the brexit debate with remain supporters criticising the eu. it's a very foolish decision
by the eu commission. at quite a low level i understand it, a technical level, to cut the uk out of the galileo network and it is in the interests of both the uk and the other eu 27 countries that we continue to work together on security. the european negotiators have said they want to work on security. the european parliament has called for partnership and security. the other eu 27 countries have called for partnership on security, but but then us out of the galileo programme seems to go counter to that. eu officials say the uk plan would turn galileo from an eu programme into a joint uk—eu one, possibly handing us the ability to switch off the signal, but britain is not being entirely shut out. in my view, the 27 member states will discuss this issue and they will instruct the commission to offer more
flexibility on this particular issue, because security cooperation between the european union and the united kingdom is an absolutely essential issue. so, some hope for britain, which may still have a role in your‘s answer to america's gps system. so send the satellites in space, with help from ground stations. it tells you exactly where you are on the earth at any particular time. you can use gps but you can't rely on it, because it's under the control of the american. that's fine, but if you're really going to use it for many, many applications that are highly sensitive, that are really important to europe or to our own nation, you have to have a level of control of your own. a tussle in space which is even
prompted talk of a new satellite system with australia, may help define our new global role, but britain's interest in galileo shows that in space at least, the uk sees its destiny in europe, rather than in the anglo sphere. i am joined now by paul everitt the ceo of ads — a trade organisation for companies in the uk aerospace, defence, security and space sectors. a very good evening to you. who needs a who more here? if we wanted to go it alone, is that a credible threat for us to say, 0k we pick up our toys? i think everybody recognises there is a far better solution for us to remain part of the galileo project. we, as a country, have invested hugely. as an industry we have huge capability that is essential to the project. the issue here is what we in the uk do not want to do is lose the uk capability and capacity to create
satellites and the systems that support them. the eu's line, effectively, is part of the brexit negotiations, which is to say, if you don't have a deal, all this goes. the challenge for the uk is a timing one, which is at this very moment there are important contracts... so this is a consistent theme in other areas. how much damage can we do to it? if we say we will play hardball with you, not let you use commonwealth bases or our dependencies in far—off places to put your bases. we will put our proprietary stuff out as far as we can. how much of the threat
can we make them? it will take longer and cost them more. it is a 10 billion euros project. it might take them a couple more years. it might cost them a couple more brilliant but they will still have it. across the eu 27, that's not bad but remember, the people that create this technology are by and large european businesses, so why would they not supply... we like to say we do have a uk industry, but that is part of an integrated european space industry, and it is more likely that those companies will go, look, as much as we love you, that is where our main customer is. would some of them move to europe? that's the danger. i think why we are seeing the prime minister being quite so. and this matter is that losing that capability would be a real damaging for the uk industry and future prosperity. we are about to see an explosion, if that's the right phrase, in satellite communications.
we've got lots and lots of businesses in europe, in the us, who want to buy satellite, of large, small... and we are the number one producer of satellites in the world. so losing that capability would be a long—term damage. would us being kicked out of galileo and not bothering to produce our own, would that be severely damaging to the uk industry? again, i think our challenge is, europe is a major customer. the european space agency are customers and you are not going to have the capacity and capability, both in the uk and in another part of europe. yourfeeling, who is being the more stupid here, is it the brits who voted for brexit and then said we would like everything to carry on or the europeans, who are sort of cutting off their nose to spite theirface because...? i think this is part of, unfortunately, the way negotiations work. we have seen this in a number of areas where, as i said earlier, the eu basically says, look, if there is no deal,
this is what you lose. we have seen it from aviation, chemicals agency, a variety of different areas. the rules do is state, if you become a third country, you cannot have access to the secure part of the system. now, we all believe that at the end of the negotiations the uk will have, it will be a third country but we will have a very special status and particularly from a defence and security perspective, you know, it will all fall into place. the challenge is, there are other issues on the brexit table which are not making as much progress, which brings the timing issue to a head. thank you very much. we can be a country 2.9 instead of third. nick is back with me because galileo is just one row with the eu. the whole brexit process is not moving forward at the moment. and there was a relatively forthright briefing by a commission official today. what was said? it seems there is a bitter war of words between the uk and the eu.
a senior eu official said that the uk was living in a fantasy world, in which nothing changes with brexit and everything remains the same. cited a number of areas, including galileo, that the uk has accused this eu official of using insulting language. this comes just a month before that eu summit at the end ofjune, where significant progress needs to be made. i have do say, there is some suspicion amongst brexiteers that this sort of row between london and brussels could provide very convenient cover for what they fear is going to be slow but almighty moves by theresa may to forge a strong and enduring customs relationship with the eu that would last beyond the end of the transition. important, theresa may said at a recent briefing
with conservative mps it would all be done and dusted well before the general election in 2022. 0ne brexiteer i was in touch with said the government are setting the league match slitting their own throats. thank you very much indeed. there has been a remarkable shift in social attitudes towards homosexuality in recent years. in fact, the whole idea has changed from homosexual to lgbtq+. so it's amazing to think that section 28 is exactly 30 years old today. the now repealed clause of a local government act, to stop councils promoting the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. that's a quote from the act. no—one was successfully prosecuted under it, but it did have an effect on teaching — and to many it simply seemed intended to stigmatise the gay community. perhaps it even contributed to the strength of the identity politics we are now so familiar with. the prominent gay writer and journalist matthew todd — he was editor at attitude magazine for many years — was in school in those days, and looks back now, at the effect it had. there is my school picture. there i
am, 14. this was 1988, there is my school picture. there i am, 1a. this was 1988, the year section 28 came in. i think i was flamboyant, over the top, section 28 came in. i think i was flamboyant, overthe top, performing teenager at the time but inside i was traumatised and frightened the whole time. i desperately needed to talk to somebody. i was sat with a teacher
trembling, skirting around it. i was quite an effeminate child and he would have picked up on the fact that other kids would call me queer and so on. but i felt like he was scared of specifically addressing it. iam scared of specifically addressing it. i am sure the reason for my teacher's reticence was section 20 eight. the government is to ban the promotion of homosexuality in schools. section 28 was enacted that yea rs schools. section 28 was enacted that years ago in a climate that was very different for lg bt years ago in a climate that was very different for lgbt people. years ago in a climate that was very different for lgbt peoplelj obviously don't want children taught that the gay and lesbian lifestyle is natural and normal, it is not, never has been and never will be. back then, you could be fired for being gay and homophobic headlines we re
being gay and homophobic headlines were at daily occurrence and gay people were betrayed as a menace to society. 75% of the british public thought homosexuality was wrong.|j hate to use the word perversion, but let's face up to the truth of this situation, that is what it is. despite mass protests and the campaign of civil disobedience, section 28 became law in 1988. children need to be taught traditional moral valuables are being taught the inalienable right to be gay. supporters said its intention was to protect children and support family values. for me and support family values. for me and my school friends, it was devastating. i went to school with simon marks and alexander smith. they were bullied, struggling and desperate for support.|j they were bullied, struggling and desperate for support. i felt i had nowhere to turn on at school. so something i was feeling before section 28 came in, itjust felt
like it sealed the deal, you are this disgusting perverted that we have been told about in the newspapers. simon's primary school head did act by visiting his family home. he was worried if i chose a life he called it back then, i would be lonely. he doubted me to my parents and the school. i was ten and it was devastating. i felt my world came crashing in. you said section 28 negatively affected your life? absolutely, without a shadow ofa life? absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt. all those messages internalised and made me hate myself. this must like three cherries in a fruit machine and the verb promote, because nobody knows what the courts will decide it means. the vague wording of section 28 left it is about homophobic bullying. simply talking about
homosexuality, you could be accused of promoting it. talking to somebody who is homosexual, you could be accused of promoting it if you talk about their needs. this is the book without which section 28 wouldn't have happened. it is a picture book about a young girl who lives with her two gay fathers. the sun newspaper splashed across their front headline and called it a vile bob in school. pictures like this one caused outrage. the major concern has been that small children, some as young as five, when they start school have actually had homosexuality thrust at them, there has been a promotional exercise on very young children indeed. baroness knight was one of the key architects of section 20 eight. there were probably about 50
sets of pa rents, eight. there were probably about 50 sets of parents, fathers and mothers and they came to see me about this matter and asked me to try to do something. it wasn't about stopping homosexuals, it was about saving children, which is a different thing. but for so many children, section 28 did the opposite of protecting them. how old were you when section 28 was brought in?|j was 1a. i remember it because of the boy george single, no section 28, which i saw in the record shop. # note 20 eight. when charles was 16, boys at his boarding school found a gay magazine under his mattress. he felt forced to deny his sexuality then landed so for to come. the stress of it drove him to drink and drugs. six years ago while high, charlesjumped off a london flyover. he is now in a
wheelchair. do you believe there is a direct link between what happened to you at school, section 28 and that atmosphere and your accident? firstly, i made 101 bad decisions in life that i made, but yes, no one operates in a vacuum. the idea that i had to be rigourously obsessed about who did and didn't know about my sexuality was really what ushered me down the first of those bad parts. but section 28 did galvanise a whole generation of activists like sally. she abseiled into the house of lords as they debated the law and this lady was one who stormed the bbc news as they were on earth. good
afternoon and bbc news. tory rebels have said... we at least had to mark the moment, had to get people to know this terrible thing was happening. writes the lesbian and 95v happening. writes the lesbian and gay people. what would you say to people who say it was pointless because it was happening and we lost. we are talking about it now, 30 years on, the anniversary and we are hearing about people like yourself who, it counted their feeling of isolation. it was state promoted homophobia, it was a terrible thing. it wasn't a nothing, it wasn't like it didn't matter, it still matters. section 28 was repealed 15 years ago but the ba roness repealed 15 years ago but the baroness still believe she did the right thing. the one thing she said did surprise me. the intention was the well—being of children. if i got
it. thankfully the new rules come into effect tomorrow. the traffic should be slowing up. despite this, most of us are in the dark as to what the law is and some companies wa nt what the law is and some companies want you to opt into their mailing list and others not. do those organisations understand it themselves? who better to explain it to us than david grossman. celebrating compliance, fingers crossed. a group of business people need to mark this milestone in their gdpjourney need to mark this milestone in their gdp journey with a curry. this lawyer runs a facebook group of 30,000 owners all read about implementing the new rules. we are getting these messages saying william opt in, will you opt out? there is confusion because these people are asking me to opt in, these people are asking me to opt out, who is right? who is right? there isn't a right. it is how you
have previously obtain consent from people and it depends on what relationship you have had with those people. with customers, you could rely on legitimate interest. you would need consent to keep e—mailing them. it is a complex regulation. gdp stands for general data protection regulation. companies will have to be more responsible on how they process and keep data. they need our consent to collect it and as citizens, we have the right to access the data and have it deleted. companies will be more accountable if they suffer a data breach. the maximum fine is 20 million euros of 496 maximum fine is 20 million euros of 4% of global turnover, whichever is greater. that is a terrifying prospect for people like allison, who runs an education data business. she doesn't have in—house lawyers to advise her. we thought it doesn't mean anything to us, we thought it
was people who did loads of data entry and had loads of documents, the big companies. in the last three months, i was thinking, oh my goodness, it really does need for us to sort it out as well. we have had to sort it out as well. we have had to update privacy notices, documentation has had to be sent out to schools to be signed and get those documents back with signatures. that has been a challenge. and some of the schools don't understand it themselves. we are not necessarily dealing with data people, but teachers with senior leaders in schools. not eve ryo ne senior leaders in schools. not everyone can celebrate the head of tamara's deadline. suzanne brings not only are many small not compliant, many she says, still don't even they need to be. joining me now is ibm's data protection 0fficer. good evening. after this act 0fficer. good evening. after this a ct ta kes 0fficer. good evening. after this act takes effect, and it settle down, what will i know that is
distant? you will notice you will have more control. where will i know this? is it the end of spam? spam will reduce, definitely. the control you will have and the possibility they will have to decide if they continue to receive communication or not, for what purpose and from which companies. 0n the other side, companies. 0n the other side, companies due to the gdpr and the huge fines we have mentioned but the accountability of transparency that has been imposed on companies will be interested in having a more disciplined daily—macro discipline in the way they use data with their customers. when you say i will get more control, what do you mean? is
it where they fill in one box and not the other hand if you do want to receive our marketing e—mails, don't tick the box. it will be simpler because the way communication about use of your data will come to you, will over time be simplified and be in more basic terms. we should receive less communication, more on the point and more clear. so if they seek permission to access your content and your photos, why do they need a nap? will they not be allowed to do that? you have to say yes because you need to to get the app. it depends if it is a free service, it depends on your ability to give your data for the service being provided. the whole point of gdpr is
to ensure that individuals are more aware of their data and what can be done with their data. 0n the other side, ensuring that companies are more transparent in the way they use data. in ibm we have always been extremely concerned about the trust the customer puts on the way we use data and our philosophy. we are, this week, calling on technology companies to follow our routine and adopt the principle of responsibility. lots of other companies will say they tried to be responsible. is it because of this process , responsible. is it because of this process, databases are being cleared. i am process, databases are being cleared. iam hoping process, databases are being cleared. i am hoping that i will be removed from their databases and never hear from them again? many of the notices you are receiving are coming from companies you didn't
even realise they had your data. that is part of the problem. there will be a cleaning to be made by companies in terms of what data they have and whether they have the permission. the fact there is this massive communication is also a signal of the panic at the moment where companies tend to ever communicate because sometimes they don't control the purpose for which the data they retain in the company. i feel sorry for the smaller companies, no one feel sorry for facebook or cambridge analytica, but for some small company, data is really important? this is one of the concerns, small and medium businesses may find it extremely complicated to afford the complexity of the relations. in ibm we have...
iam not of the relations. in ibm we have... i am not stopping you because you are promoting a product, i am stopping you because we are out of time. this is a portrait of life and also death. # london is the place for me. # london, this lovely city. # you can go to france, india, asia or austria will stop your # are you must come back to this london.
# i must come back to this london. #iam must come back to this london. # i am speaking metaphorically. # i am speaking metaphorically. # i am speaking metaphorically. #iam # i am speaking metaphorically. # i am glad to know my mother country. # i have travelled the country, but london is the place for me. good evening. the weekend is not too far away and the weather prospects are quite messy. while it will be warm and messy at times there is the potential for thundery downpours. it will be tricky to predict exactly where and when the worst of those will turn up. you can see the way the shower clouds turn up from iberia towards the uk. that will be the pattern that will continue through the weekend. 0vernight we will see thunderstorms drifting across east anglia and the midlands and tomorrow they will slide into wales and into northern england. the
odd heavy burst of rain with flashes of lightning and rumbles of thunder. in the south we start friday on a cloudy note but it should brighten up cloudy note but it should brighten up with the sunshine by the afternoon. across wales, the midlands and northern england that is where we will have this area of cloud where the showers and perhaps thunderstorms continuing to drift through. northern ireland and scotla nd through. northern ireland and scotland enjoying the best of the sunshine tomorrow. although coastal parts of scotland there will be mist and murk and low cloud that will plague those coastal spots. make it feel chilly as well. in the best of the sunshine, 20 degrees in belfast and around 23 in london. tomorrow we will see the showers and thunderstorms drifting north and west. there will be cloud around and it will be misty and murky and it will be very mild. very muggy, temperatures down to 9 degrees in aberdeen but their team in cardiff and maybe 1a in the centre of london. cloudy start to saturday. the cloud will break up and we will
see spells of sunshine across northern england, scotland and northern ireland to an extent. down towards the south—west there is the chance of seeing some vicious thunderstorms breaking out late in the day. as we get into sunday, that possibility only grows. we will draw in warm airfrom the possibility only grows. we will draw in warm air from the neocons possibility only grows. we will draw in warm airfrom the neocons in but we will also see showery rain and thunderstorms continuing to approach from the south. all the while, northern parts closer to this area of high pressure will have a slightly more straightforward forecast on sunday and monday, looking largely dry with spells of sunshine. pleasantly warm. further south, there will be sunny spells but oddly feel of the potential for some heavy downpours and thunderstorms, especially on sunday. a mixed weekend ahead. that is all from me, good night. i'm in singapore, the headlines:
president trump cancels next month's summit with the north korean leader because of what he calls kimjong un's hostility. i believe that this is a tremendous setback for north korea and indeed a setback for north korea and indeed a setback for north korea and indeed a setback for the world. pyongyang says the announcement is not in line with the world's wishes and that kim jong—un had made the utmost efforts to hold the summit. i'm ben bland in london. also in the programme. the hollywood film producer harvey weinstein is reportedly preparing to surrender to police in in new york. they've been investigating alleged sexual assaults.