18/07/2014 Newsnight


The plane crash: what caused it? Should aviation authorities have seen it coming? What will be the response? We're on the ground in Ukraine and Malaysia.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 18/07/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The British Government has said tonight that the growing weight of


evidence suggests that the Malaysian flight was bound by a surface-to-air


missile fired by seperatists in Ukraine. And President Obama pointed


the finger at Vladimir Putin for training and arming them, he's not


alone. Tonight we are in Washington, Malaysia and Ukraine.


Here in Kiev senior military officials have poured scorn on the


idea that the aeroplane could have been brought down by the rebels


alone. Like a horseman trying to drive a Formula One racing car is


how one officer described it. Why were the people who died ever


put in the firing line when aviation authorities, the Russians and even


amateur experts all knew planes had been previously shot down in the


same area. When I looked on Tuesday morning, when I wrote my blog post,


by then the Russian aircrafts were bypassing the eastern Ukrainian part


and were flying around the Russian borders, so they were giving this


area a wide berth. Here in Kuala Lumpur the Government is adamant is


played by the book. The route and altitude was signed off at the


highest international level, the airline insists it is not to blame.


We hear from a former US Secretary of State of defence and former


foreign and Defence Secretary. Good evening. 298 lives, more than half


of them Dutch, 80 of them children, and amongst the dead ten Britons.


There is a growing conviction on both sides of the Atlantic about


where the blame lies. The Foreign Office is helping the repatriation


of those killed, without a ceasefire where the plane was bounce downed,


how hard is it for the air accident investigators to begin their work.


The OSCE, was the first to get the investigators in today. Even though


they did get access, under the auspices of the Ukrainian rebels.


They said they were very circumscribed in what they could do.


We were only there if the for an hour an-and-a-half, they said one of


the fighters was aggressive and violent, one firing in the air. I


have spoken to Dutch colleagues in touch with their side, they want to


send investigators in as well because of the large number of Dutch


people who lost their lives. They say they are very worried for their


safety, that is their prime concern. Now the other difficulty with this


investigation is of course jurisdiction, nobody agrees who has


jurisdiction over this investigation. It should be an


international one, but led by the country in which the crash occurred.


But in fact there are worries that things like the black box and data


recorders may have already been removed may already been in Russia,


so some people are worried about data and evidence contamination. Now


that said, there is already such a lot of evidence out there that many


experts agree that it shouldn't take too long to get a pretty clear


picture of what happened here and when that does become clear this


could become a game changer for this conflict. We're about to show you


the report we have compiled here this afternoon and I should say that


some viewers may find some of the images, especially towards the end,


distressing. Outside the Dutch embassy in Kiev


they are grieving as if for their own.


But these aren't relatives of the nearly 200 Dutch national who is


lost their lives yesterday. These are Ukrainians. For weeks we have


shed our tears over our own dead, the Ukraine President said today, we


have tears left for the innocent victims of this crime. Today Ukraine


mourns with you. Monitors from the OSCE reached the crash site this


afternoon, they said rebel forces tried to hinder them in their


investigations. MH17 was brought down by a missile, this much we


know. But there are still many unanswered questions, who fired the


rocket and where did the launcher come from? Kiev says this unverified


footage shows a Soviet or Russian BUK surveys-to-air missile system on


the move near the crash site missing two missiles. Here is a similar


model on display on Red Square in Moscow. But the Ukrainian military


uses the BUK system too, at the end of June rebels bragged they captured


a BUK launcher when they overran a military base in eastern Ukraine. At


around the same time as the Malaysian passenger jet crashed a


rebel leader claimed on social media to have downed a military transport


plane, after news of the passenger jet broke the post was deleted. So


did the rebels shoot down the plane thinking it was a Ukrainian military


aircraft, and if so, did they get help from Russia? At meetings of the


military top brass, behind closed doors, I'm told they admit they


can't be certain whether this rocket launcher was brought across the


border from Russia or captured by rebels here in Ukraine. But they do


believe that whoever fired the missile must have had help from the


Russian side, especially in targeting. The idea that this plane


was brought down by a bunch of Cossacks, one senior officer said,


driving a Formula One car. This driving a Formula One car. This


general was deputy chief of Ukraine's defence staff until 2010


and an expert on rocket technology. He is convinced that the rebels


couldn't have acted alone. TRANSLATION: They don't have the


specialists, so they are using the Crimean template. Russian military


service personnel without identification marks on their


uniforms come in alongside the rebels, the whole thing is prepared


by a Russian team. In Moscow President Putin denied any Russian


involvement and laid the blame for the crash squarely at Kiev's door.


TRANSLATION: I express my condolences on behalf of the Russian


federation, I want to underline that this tragedy would not have happened


if this land was at peace or at least combat operations had not been


resumed. It is obvious that the state on whose territory this


happened bears the responsibility for this. But in Washington,


intelligence analysts say the downing of MH17 follows a disturbing


pattern. We also know that this is not the first time a plane has been


shot down in eastern Ukraine. Over the last several weeks


Russian-backed seperatists have shot down a Ukrainian transport plane and


helicopter, and they claimed responsibility for a Ukrainian


fighter jet. Moreover we know these seperatists have received a steady


flow of support from Russia. This includes arms and training. It


includes heavy weapons, and it includes antiaircraft weapons. On


Independence Square in Kiev, the barricades are still there, months


after the old President was toppled but Ukrainians come here, not only


to pay their respects to those who died fighting in their revolution.


This woman's homemade poster needs no translation. Like many in this


city, she sees Russia as the aggressive and believes Europe and


America are letting him get away with it. TRANSLATION: You can fight


Putin, she says, but you have to want to fight. This is where it all


began, here on Independence Square, first here at the barricades with


peaceful protests, first here at the barricades with


dead bodies lying right here on the streets, and sniper fire whizzing up


and down over these cobble stones. Now the fighting may have moved east


now but as you can see Ukraine is still very much unfinished business.


Today in the eastern side of Luhansk, shelling left more dead


bodies in the streets. The fighting has been going on for months now,


misery at home but largely ignored abroad. With the search for the


bodies of the passengers of MH17, for the men, women and children who


were shot down over the fields of eastern Ukraine, has propelled this


conflict back to the forefront of the international agenda. Once the


facts of this strategy become clearer, Russia and the west may be


forced to deal with the problem. To discuss this I'm joined now by


the former American deputy Defence Secretary, who is in Washington, and


in the studio we have the former foreign secretary, Sir Malcolm


Rifkind and the bureau chief of the Dutch radio station.


First of all, do you think there is any real doubt now that Vladimir


Putin's hands are all over this? Look, let me put it this way, if you


give your car keys to a drunken teenager and he goes and kills a, it


seems to me you are responsible and that is what you intended, it is


more than just training and arming, it is incitement, and this whole


tragedy and it is a tragedy, yet another chapter that began when


Putin decided on Russian nationalism over Crimea, totally groundlessly, I


think it is because he wants to divert attention from the corruption


of his own regime in Moscow. Now that Downing Street has firmed up


its position on this, is there any real doubt? There is, but obviously


the independent inquiry has to do its job and come to its own


conclusion. It is not just a question as to whether the actual


attack on the aircraft came from the rebels in eastern Ukraine. There


will thenk be a secondary question and a more important one, who was it


controlling the missile launchers, was it the Ukrainian rebels or


Russian Special Forces. You heard there it was like putting a guy who


rides a horse in charge of a Formula One car? That was the question about


whether getting advice and help from Russia. I'm not making the


allegation, I don't know, we know there are large numbers of so called


Russia volunteer who is are soldiers not wearing uniforms. They could


have been actually controlling the missile launchers themselves rather


than simply training the rebels. If that is bound to be the case, found


to be the case, the consequences of that are what? Putin has to actually


own up as to the fact that there are large numbers of Russian citizens


I'm talking about, from the Russian federation who are actually fighting


with the seperatists. There are Chechens but also from other parts


of Russia. That actually makes the whole issue far more dangerous and


disturbing even than it would otherwise have been. This is


Vladimir Putin's strategy gone completely wrong isn't it? I'm not


so sure. I would like to step back a bit and go back to the assumption


that Russia's hands are all over this. This is what in fact President


Obama said just a few hours before, he said all the evidence shows that


way, that Russia is to blame. And then, let's conduct an


investigation. Now it is like saying that Mr So-and-so is as guilty as


sin and let's have an investigation after this. Does that be how the


British system works. The seperatists were all too happy to


owning up to downing a transport plane or a fighter jet or


helicopter? There is so much conflicting evidence, allegations


concoctions and conjectures are flying about, I wouldn't put my


trust in that. I would trust an objective, impartial investigation.


What do you say to point thaw can't -- that you can't have an


investigation if you have prejudged it? As Mr Rifkind said there are


Russian troops all over yarn Ukraine, so called volunteers, some


of the called Chechens are the same Chechens that were helping Moscow


carry out its genocide in Chechnya. Putin should remove the Russian


troops from Ukraine and stop sending weapons in. You don't need an


investigation to know that activity has to stop. He should stop inciting


Russian separatism throughout the area. Why does Vladimir Putin feel


he can act with impunity, is it because there is not enough been


doing post-Crimea to show its opposition? Europe has been SLOES.


Everyone is a-- slowest. Everyone is afraid. I just said Putin is pouring


gasoline on the fire and everyone else is afraid to pour some as well.


The key to ending this adventure of Putin's is to make sure it will be


defeated and not by British or American troops, not by Poles but


Ukrainians, they have shown enormous will to fight for their integrity


and territory. That was negated by Cameron, Obama a few years ago. We


have serious sanctions imposed by America on the bank, defence firms,


energy companie Don't exaggerate, they are minor banks and they don't


affect much. Is that the problem, there hasn't been any fortitude or


backbone by Europe or America? There has been a very timid response. If


you think about Crimea, a whole province of Ukraine, annexed by


Putin some months ago, and the only reaction was some visa restrictions


and asset freezes on a couple of dozen Russians. Putin does have an


Achilles heel, it is its Russian economy. If you


Achilles heel, it is its Russian example how the Iranians have been


brought to example how the Iranians have been


nuclear programme by-election financial and banking sanction,


Russia is not Iran. We have seen how the Russian stop exchange


dramatically falls every time there is a threat of serious financial


sanctions. Are you embarrassed by the lack of activity by Europe? Yes,


absolutely. We could have done more, Putin is an opportunist, and if the


west reacts in a timid way to the annexation of Crimea, it is not


surprising he has been testing to see how much further he can go. Did


David Cameron take his eye off the ball, was there not enough firm


leadership? There is evidence that Cameron was trying to get more


agreement than proved possible in the European Union, I hope that is


the case. Will it be sanctions and the Russian economy be the only


thing to pull Vladimir Putin away from this? If you are looking for


anything from me you are knocking at the wrong door. I want to go back to


the issue of Crimea, London and Washington have decided the fate of


Crimea, there are two million residents of Crimea, don't they have


a say. But Crimea was part of a sovereign country? Excuse me it is a


very complicated issue, and we have to go back into history to resolve


that. Forgive me, when Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear


weapons, as part of that agreement Russia recognised the existing


borders of Ukraine, including Crimea, that has been a very


dangerous thing for that now to have been abandoned. What do you think


Vladimir Putin's next move will be? We are in a situation now where will


the relations between the west and Vladimir Putin ever recover from


this. What must he do next. I don't know I don't know what his next move


will be, I hope he has gotten a taste of how things have gotten out


of hand and it is reinforced by world action, not just the US and


Europe, although they need to be leading this. But you know 100


people heading to the international AIDS conference in Melbourne have


been ruthlessly murdered in this incident. Again he's playing with


fire, the fire can burn a lot of people and a lot of people need to


send a message to him to back off. I don't know whether he will back off,


but he must. If I may, yes it is a terrible tragedy that 300 innocent


people completely having nothing to do with Ukraine at all perished in


such a manner, I mean it is plausible that it was an accident,


but should we forget about the 500 people that perished in Ukraine


because of the military action by Ukrainian Government. We are moving


off from this, we need to nail this one point that there are BUK


antiaircraft launchers in Ukraine, in eastern Ukraine and they have


been put there by the Russians? We don't know that. The Ukrainian army


has those same BUK. Not in eastern Ukraine? According to the Russian


defence ministrier there are and they were moved there in the past


few days. Is there any way that Vladimir Putin can back down from


this? I think he must be very worried now, up until now this has


been a dispute purely involving America and Europeans, because of


the destruction of the Malaysian airliner, this is a humanitarian


disaster not just happening in a far away country, this is something


which the whole world will be very angry about. Putin has to do


something to assuage that. There may be increasing certainty about who


certain traited the a-- certain perpetrated the atrocity. But should


the plane will be flying over a warzone. There was a public warning


that the Russian Government had been training pro--Russian separatists to


have an antiaircraft capability, the use was on the west side. Add to


that the fact that two Ukrainian planes, one a small transport plane,


two a military plane were downed this week, should the Malaysian


plane have taken another route. We are in Kuala Lumpur.


I suppose if the last Malaysian Airlines strategy here four months


ago was about disbelief, incomprehension, nagging doubt that


the Government here might have done more. This time round in Kuala


Lumpur it is different, the sense that the grief is shared around the


world, and a sense that finger of blame is not pointing at them. A


Government spokesman told me earlier that the route that flight MH17 and


the altitude it was at were signed off at the very highest level by the


international civil aviation de on Authority. They feel vindicated it


was not to -- the Civil Aviation Authority, they feel vindicated it


was not to blame. A curious picture is emerging, we know that Ukrainian


authorities warned that airspace was dangerous, back on Monday night,


when a Ukrainian transport plane was shot down. We know they put in place


minimum attitude requirements of 32,000 feet. MH17 cleared those, but


only just cleared them at 33,000. So questions tonight of why the


airspace wasn't shut down completely when they knew the situation there


to be so fraught. Questions as the unspeakable pain of what happened on


Thursday is only just starting to hit home.


Who would have thought these images would be so scrutinised and so


filled with pain. The last moments of the passengers who three hours


later would become British victims of an act of terror as bizarre as it


is brutal. The names of some of those who died emerged today and


their reasons for travel. The students heading off for a gap year,


two Newcastle United fans on the way to watch them on a pre-seen tour.


One father learning of his son's death from the club's own website.


The AIDS activist joining colleagues for a key summit in Melbourne. Here


at Malaysia's Kuala Lumpur Airport a sense of disbelief that lightning


can strike twice, but less anger in the grief as the country more


confidently points the finger of blame elsewhere. I'm told by a


Malaysian Government spokesman that some three hours before flight MH17


took off they sent their flight plan for approval as is customary. The


plan and altitude was signed off by the Civil Aviation Authority, the


international body that is in control of these things. The


significance of that, says the airline, is crucial. It means the


tragedy itself was not of their making. ? So the questions now turn


to those who deemed the space safe. MH17 took off just after midday, by


2. 15 GMT air traffic control had lost contact. Authorities, it seems,


knew there was danger. On Monday Ukraine imposed a ban of flights


below 32,000, MH17 had cleared the required altitude, but only by 1,000


feet, it was flying at 33,000. And you have to think if they knew a


rocket launcher in the area could reach 70,000 feet why wasn't the


airspace banned all together. The responsibility for deciding the


availability for the space used by aircraft is entirely that of each


country and state. That is well established principle under the


international civil aviation organisation rules and procedures.


Since last Monday the 14th of July that exclusion zone, if you wish,


that flights were not allowed to operate, was extended vertically fr


ground up to and including 32,000 feet. Then there is the blogger who


predicted it all, simply by following what was to him an evident


and emerging pattern. When I looked on Tuesday morning and I wrote my


blog post, by then the Russian aircrafts were bypassing the eastern


Ukrainian part and were flying around the Russian broaders, so they


were giving -- borders, so they were giving the area a wide berth. If it


was obvious to me it should be obvious to airlines that this is


getting into harm's way. There is people here with unpredictable


behaviours who are in charge of sophisticated and powerful weapons


systems. The analysis will not stop here, there will be claims and


counter claims, blame and counter blame, and surely a change to flight


procedure here on. But as the world becomes experts in the aviation


flight back a single plane took, on the ground a tragedy whose scope is


only beginning to unfold, many nations mourn their own dead and


look to the inexplicable. As we start to get more information about


what happened to start to get more information about


MH17, questions are asked about why flights were able to fly over


conflict areas like the Ukraine. We speak to our guest now. The


Malaysians say they were doing it by the book, if they were following


what they were told to do, why were they blown out of the sky? Yeah,


that is a jolly good question. You know the point about this is that


this is a l-worn, a well-trodden path that the aircraft do use. The


shortest possible route between European airports and those airports


in south-east Asia. Because of that and because of the longevity, I


suppose, of the Malaysian Airlines flight in question, it had been


tracking backwards and forwards across that bit of the sky for an


awful long time. I suppose they felt safe to do so. If I could just bring


in another couple of points, one, the Ukrainians themselves had warned


there were problems and fly above 32,000, that really wasn't


sufficient, we knew from the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe


as early as late June that there was activity, there was training for


antiaircraft missile activity on the eastern side of the border, but used


on the western side of the border, why did that information either not


get to the authorities or get to the authorities and the authorities


didn't pay any attention to it? Whose ultimate responsibility is it


to decide who flies where? I guess the ultimate responsibility comes


down to the international civil aviation organisation. They are the


organisation that signed this entire airspace for the whole of Ukraine,


including the eastern part as safe to fly in. But do they listen, but


do they take into account things like NATO public warnings. Things


like analysis of what's going on the ground, secret reports and so forth.


How could they possibly miss this? How could they, indeed. You know,


one would hope that the various safety authorities around the world


do take notice of the information that's being fed to them. But


evidently not in this case. I'm interested, because you are an


expert, somebody will have to pay for this part of the problem, you


know, in that 90 seconds, around about that, there was a Singapore


flight, there was a Malaysian Airlines other flight, there was a


Thai Airlines flight, it could be one of any number of flights,


areofloat we understand -- Areoflot stopped flying we understand. Who


has failed in their duty to stop civilian aircraft flying in this


area? The answer is that it could be anyone of a number of alphabet soup


of organisations that has failed in their duty of care, if you will to


protect passengers who are flying in international flight. That is going


to be the subject of some deep soul searching as we go forward to


determine who is directly at fault in all of this tragic tragic


accident. We have only got time for one short question, we know that the


crash investigators have been limited to what they can do in the


site. What is the key thing to look for on the site. The most important


thing is the retrieval of the bodies, what will they look at to


point them to what missile it was and who it belong today? Once the


retrieval of the bodies has taken place, of course then evidently they


are going to be looking for the two black boxes, and beyond that they


will be examining the fuselage with a fine tooth comb and looking for


the tell tale signs of explosives. With that they may well get an


indication as to precisely what type of missile brought the aircraft out


of the sky. When the Conservative manifesto for the general election


is published it is likely to feature tough promises on immigration, but


is fear of immigration different from the reality. Newsnight has been


leaked a new Home Office report that will bear that out. But the report


into the impact of immigration has been blocked and delayed because of


a row between ministers over whether it paints too Rosie a picture of


immigration. -- rosy a picture of immigration. There is a


demonstration of a largely positive affect for business in Britain. This


is our exclusive report. This was the week the Tories got


tough on Europe. First a reshuffle, then a dig at the European Court of


Human Rights. All red meat to the euro-sceptics, but there is a report


lurking in Whitehall they will find harder to swallow. Newsnight has


been leaked a confidential document which has been causing some people


here at the Home Office to have kittens. It has been fought over,


word by word, line by line, for the best part of a year. It should have


been published months ago, why hasn't it? Because it is regarded as


too pro-European. The report pulls together evidence from dozens of


groups and businesses about immigration from the EU. The good


and the bad. And some of it makes startling reading. The majority of


EU nationals come here to work, there is no evidence that access to


benefits was a significant factor in migration. European immigrants are


less intense users of the social security system than UK nationals.


Little hard evidence regarding problems in community cohesion as a


result of EU migration. The affects are viewed as largely -- the effects


are viewed as largely positive, providing a wide range of skilled


labour and opportunities for workers. This report leaked has a


broad support? It doesn't surprise me, there are lots of studies that


show we benefit from free movement. UCL did a study to show we were


billions better off, and new companies set up by migrants who


employ a lot of people here. And Britons been fit from free movement


to live in France, pain or wherever else. Some areas have been affected


more than others by our open borders. Ealing in west London is


one of them. On a boiling hot day, we asked shoppers if they were


getting hot under the They come here and get the best job


and go back and live a luxury life. I'm the son of an immigrant, I come


from an Irish family, Britain is an immigrant-friendly country, I think.


We have an inflation of eastern Europeans, especially in west London


actually, and it overkilled on work flow with everybody else. For me


Europe it means that people can go everywhere, for me it is a good


thing. This morning I was in Paris and now I'm here, for me it is


really good. The report is not one-way traffic by any means. It


highlights concerns about the impact on lowly-paid British workers and on


certain communities. But of the 60-odd contributors to the report,


most of the negative comments come from three think-tanks,


Migrationwatch, Open Europe, and Demos. The problem with complete


freedom of movement is not so much the freedom of movement, it is the


fact that we have this principle of nondiscrimination, which means that


you have to treat all European Union citizens effectively as if they are


British citizens, that is what people don't understand. Not just in


Britain but throughout the European Union.


Newsnight has been told the Home Office vetoed the first draft, and


rewrote it. This version horrified Liberal Democrats and they insisted


civil servants hammer out the final text. That was completed months ago.


Unfortunately this is something that has happened time and time again,


when there are studies which the Home Office has done which say the


opposite of what the Home Secretary would like them to say, there is a


tendency of them not coming out promptly I can understand why for


political reasons the Conservatives didn't want the facts to come out


before the European election, but we should make our policies based on


the fact that reports like this should come out promptly. This


review has stoked the debate, and it isn't even out yet. After months of


sitting on the shelf, the Home Office now says the report will be


published shortly. I spoke to the Business Secretary,


Vince Cable earlier today, I asked him how he explained the fact that


this report hadn't come out yet, even though there was a copy ready


in December? There was a disagreement in Government as to how


to do this, there was a draft that came through the Home Office that


was frankly rather one-sided. We disagreed with the content and I


thought it was propagandaist, we went back to the drawing board and


it now acknowledges there are some problems with the free movement and


impact on service, many of the studies quoted show it is economic


benefit to the UK. Were you intimately involved in, as it were,


the reversioning of it? I was involved. And indeed there was a lot


of working across Government to make sure that what emerged reflected the


different views of people within the Government across the coalition and


different ministers. I think what has emerged is a balanced and


sensible product. But, you are actually supporting a Government


that is actively, as it were, trying to say that there are problems with


immigration? This is about free movement within the, it is not about


the wide -- within the European Union, it is not about the wider


implication, there are different views about it. You don't see the


irony in colluding and shoring up legislation that goes entirely


against your own argument? It is not a collusion, we have to compromise


so we can function. Immigration is a difficult area where there are very


different views in Government. Ranging from people who would want a


complete clampdown ranging to others with a much more open and liberal


approach. My job within Government is to argue the business case and


also nor -- for universities and higher education. All the evidence


we have is the contribution immigrants make is positive, and we


have won that argument. The Liberal Democrats are not without a locust


in this debate in an area that presumably you wouldn't agree with,


which was when Nick Clegg brought up the idea of migrant bonds. It was


dropped, it is not happening. Do you regret the fact it was even brought


up? There is no harm in raising ideas. It was tested out and felt


not to be a good idea and we're not sur suing it, I'm pleased with that


because it has raised a reaction in countries where we want more


visitors. How comfortable can you be, being within a coalition whose


mood music is one of problems with immigration, problems for


communities, and so forth, in a sense you where standing


shoulder-to-shoulder with other members of this Government who put


an entirely different spin on this? The coalition is a buys-like


relationship to provide stable Government and deal with the


financial crisis. That is why we got into it and it works well on that


level. When you take about mood music this is the public mood music,


there is anxiety from the general public, that is where we start from.


It is a perfectly legitimate objective of both sides to reassure


the public that migration is properly under control. I sign up


for that. Statement, given my job and also as a Liberal Democrat in


Government, I want to argue the case for the single market within the


European Union which is beneficial to the UK. It is true, of course,


that you have taken a very particular stand on immigration for


a long time. That has been your watchword. But on the whole question


of something like the spare room subsidy, right from the beginning


you know you supported the idea of the spare room subsidy, but right


from the beginning Ed Miliband was saying this was vicious, and it has


taken a report to come out before the Liberal Democrats will stand up


and say now we don't believe in it. On that particular one the issue was


not so much about the principle but how it was applied in an environment


where there simply wasn't a great deal of scope for people to downsize


rooms and it required the emergence of hard evidence. At the last party


conference the Liberal Democrats made it very clear as a party we did


not agree with the way the spare room subsidy was working. This isn't


something that has happened forth week, we have been clear for -- this


week, we have been clear we have been believing in that for a long


time and how we want to do it. Time for the front pages.


That's it from us, we leave you with a few of the amazing photographs,


amateur and professional of the lightning storms that kept half the


country awake last night. We hope you sleep better tonight. Good


night. Hello, more thunderstorms


congression the UK, more vie -- crossing the UK. It will be a stormy


Saturday as well, heavy downpours


Download Subtitles