What next after Iran launches missiles at US airbase in Qatar | BBC Newscast

Since the U.S. airstrikes on Iran's nuclear program at the weekend, the world's been waiting to see how they would retaliate.

On Monday evening, we learned with missiles fired at a U.S. military base in Qatar.

We'll discuss what's happening and what it means on this latest episode of the BBC's daily news podcast, Newscast.

Hello, it's Adam in the Newscast Studio, and we're recording this episode just after 9pm on Monday.

And here is how things played out around about Monday tea time.

We got the first reports that Qatar was temporarily closing its airspace.

Then our BBC colleagues reported there was a credible threat against the US air base in Qatar, which is near Doha, the capital, and which is called Al Udeid and is quite a big facility.

And then just before the BBC six o'clock news went on air, we got these pictures of Iranian missiles being intercepted over Qatar.

And then as the few hours progressed, we learned that all the missiles had been intercepted, that there were no casualties.

that Qatar was furious, but the US is actually being quite quiet about it.

And there was then lots of speculation that everyone involved in this had actually been letting each other know what was going to happen.

So just how worried should we be about all of this?

What's the sort of appropriate level of concern to have about what's going on tonight, which does seem a little bit

a little bit strange, especially when you consider the high level of tension that we've experienced over the last couple of days.

Well, the person who can do that brilliantly for us is the BBC World Affairs editor and presenter of our programme, Unspun World.

It's John Simpson.

Hi, John.

Hi.

Hi.

Thanks for joining us at 9pm on Monday evening.

So just first of all, the scale of this Iranian retaliation, how would you describe it?

I think the only way to describe it, Adam, is weird.

It's very strange, isn't it, to fire off a fleet of missiles, deadly missiles, at a target in a different country, actually a country which has quite good relations with you, but nevertheless you're firing it not at the country itself, but at what you would regard as an enemy country.

air base, and then tell everybody beforehand that you're going to do it, so that the Americans knew beforehand, the Qataris certainly knew, and the British knew, all before the missiles had actually been sent off.

So what did that mean?

It seems to mean that Iran wanted the credit, as it were, with its own people for striking back hard at American interests, but it wanted to tell the Americans beforehand so that they'd know and they could—

possibly evacuate the base or protect the people in it in some way.

Very strange.

I think I can't remember a sort of ballet like that in recent modern affairs.

Yeah, and it does look like the Americans moved quite a lot of their equipment and personnel out of that base a couple of days ago, which suggests the warning was given quite far in advance.

And of course, the reason the UK would have been told was because there's some British personnel and British kit there as well.

Yes, there have been.

As I understand it, there weren't any when the Iranian missiles came over this evening.

So, you know, what kind of war is it when you tell the other side sometime before what you're going to do?

Did the Americans tell the Iranians that they were going to bomb Ferdow, the nuclear plant?

No, they didn't, because that's not what you do in a usual kind of war.

But that is what Iran did this time.

What do we deduce from it?

Well, we deduce that they wanted to go through the motions, but they wanted—they were hoping, at any rate, that the Americans would say, all right, we'll let you off this time, because you haven't actually done any damage to our people.

Although I suppose it does reveal that they didn't do the other thing that many people suspected they might do, which was to block the passage of cargo ships, mainly oil and gas ships, through the streets of Hormuz, which Iran could control and could block if it wanted to, with quite negative consequences for the world economy.

Absolutely, if it wanted to.

I think those are the key words.

I think really what we're looking at is a kind of ballet that was certainly from Iran's side.

I don't think from America's side, but from Iran's side.

It wants to

seem to be capable of doing these things.

It wants to give the impression that it could very well do these things if it wanted to, but it's being quite cautious about how it actually goes about it.

So we've had the majlis, the Iranian parliament, voting in favor of blocking the Strait of Hormuz.

But that has to be put into action by the Iranian military authorities.

And there's no indication that they're at the moment thinking of doing it.

One of the reasons which will no doubt prevail with them, or at least weigh heavily with them, is that this would destroy or it would block at any rate something like 80, 90 percent of China's

supplies of oil and other goods coming through the Strait of Hormuz.

And Iran doesn't want to upset China of all countries at the moment.

We were talking there.

Donald Trump has posted on Truth Social, his social network.

He says Iran has officially responded to our obliteration of their nuclear facilities with a very weak response, which we expected and have very effectively countered.

He says that Iran had actually given them early notice, so confirming what you were saying a minute ago.

Then he continues, most importantly, they've gotten it all out of their system and there will hopefully be no further hate.

I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice.

Perhaps Iran can now proceed to peace and harmony in the region and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same.

Well, I mean, that is some message, isn't it, to get from the leader of what Iran calls the great Satan.

Yeah, thank you very much.

You didn't do anything in particular that really upset us.

And let's hope you'll behave better in future.

I mean, that's

That is quite an extraordinary message in the 21st century to be getting.

And also that very last sentence, does that mean Trump is going to pressure Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to de-escalate as well?

Well, he may try, but one of the lessons of Netanyahu's prime ministership right from the beginning of this century right through is that, actually,

It doesn't really matter what American presidents may say about what he ought to do.

He does what he wants, and he usually finds that in one way or another, the American president involved falls into line or at least goes quiet.

President Trump is the first president who's actually not just fallen into line, but is in lockstep with him in his attack on Iran.

And that must weigh in some way with Mr. Netanyahu because it's such an achievement for it.

He won't want to throw that achievement away by just telling President Trump, I don't care what you say, I'm going to do what I want.

He'll be much more careful about it.

He's been really very...

grateful sounding uh to to mr trump in the last couple of days and uh that that he won't want to throw that advantage away so he'll be he'll be more nuanced about it than he would normally be with an american president but my guess is he'll continue to do exactly what he wants

And in terms of Israel's strikes on Iran, they continued throughout Monday.

And intriguingly, it seems that they hit an Iranian prison that contains lots of kind of political prisoners, so opponents of the regime.

Why would Israel want to attack that as a target?

What are they trying to suggest by doing that?

Well, I've been to it in prison.

It's a terrifying, awful place.

It isn't only for political prisoners.

A lot of other prisoners there, at least there were when I visited it.

But it is a place of great fear and loathing.

We don't know what damage the bombs did.

I saw one indication that it had blown the main doors off.

I can't quite think how that would be given the way that the prison is built and situated.

But maybe something like that is true.

Maybe it was more of a kind of sign to the regime to say,

We don't like this prison.

It's an affront to international humanity.

You must do something about it rather than actually killing anybody there.

That's pure speculation on my part.

I mean, you can't know unless you see these things.

And I'm intrigued by you talking about going and filming in that prison in the past.

And it just makes me think you have covered the Iranian regime, well, basically its whole existence since the revolution in 1979.

I just wonder with all your knowledge and all your experience of how they behave, what's your take on just how they have acted in the last 10 days or so?

Well, it looks to me as though they've acted with a surprising degree of nervousness and fear.

How much that is the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who seems to be kind of locked away in some sort of safe place where the Israeli and American bombs can't reach him.

How much that is him on his own rather kind of tending to lose it.

I mean, a lot of the opposition people in Iran saying that he has lost it, that he's been asking for mercy.

I've no idea whether that's true, but that's certainly what's being said, or how much it's a kind of a policy of the leadership.

I think we must assume that the Islamic Republic is largely without leadership at the moment.

There is certainly, I'm led to believe, a strong movement among other leaders to say, let's replace harmony with one of our own and let's

Let's move on and try to turn the page from this difficult chapter.

And I suspect that something like that may well be happening.

I mean, when I look back, you know, you're right.

I mean, I was there on the day that the Islamic Republic was founded in 1979.

I don't think anybody would have...

been able to persuade me that it would still be in force nearly 50 years later.

It never had that sense of permanence and stability about it.

And it's got even less of that now.

And also it has morphed because the early years, it wasn't quite as theocratic as it ended up being from my reading of the history books.

And in fact, some of your books...

But, you know, I was right about that.

It was less intensely theocratic because there were so many different kind of movements and approaches, political, religious and so on, swirling around in those early years.

And it was only when

really Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, that it started to homogenize itself to destroy.

Well, it had been already starting to destroy its internal enemies and to become the force that we have more or less known it ever since.

But deeply, deeply conservative and

deeply incapable, it seems to me, of changing and developing as Iran's society actually develops and changes around it.

Oh, and John, another post from President Trump, all in capitals, and it's quite an extraordinary one again, saying, congratulations world, it's time for peace.

Well, what can you say?

I mean, you know,

My jaw drops.

I'm far too much of a traditionalist to be able to just think that the president of the United States can just throw off these things in capital letters, all in capitals, you say, this latest one is.

I mean, that is quite something.

Normally, most of the nouns are capitalized and lots of exclamation marks.

You know, all I think of is those rather dignified, slightly dour, perhaps, figures from the State Department in particular, whom I've known over the years, ambassadors, deputy ambassadors, you know, government figures.

and what they would think about a president who writes like this, does this kind of thing, and doesn't ask anybody else before he does it.

Although I think people reading that post will be like, well, does that also extend to, as we were saying a minute ago, Israel's military action in Iran?

Does that extend to Israel's

strikes against gaza uh does that apply to russia and ukraine or actually is he basically shouting in capitals to his own supporters back home signaling that this is not america getting involved in another war because we know that his own his own supporters are split down the middle between those who would quite happily go to war with iran and those who absolutely want nothing like that

I think you're absolutely right.

I think that is the audience.

Is he saying let's have peace in Gaza?

Well, he has said let's have peace in Gaza, but he's not done anything about it.

So, no, that isn't what he's referring to.

Is he referring to Ukraine?

Certainly not.

No, he's talking about what he himself has done in Iran, and to some extent he's talking about his partner in these attacks, Israel.

And now, yeah, maybe he's, you know, changing gear and saying to the MAGA faithful –

okay, I know I said I was only going to pursue peace.

Well, you know, I didn't pursue war in Iran for very long, and look how well it's turned out.

Well, John, it's been great to catch up with you this evening and benefit from your vast experience in the region.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

All the best to you.

Now, let's talk about this review into NHS maternity services in England, which was launched today in a speech by the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting.

This follows months and actually years and years of quite horrendous reports about substandard care for mums, babies and dads at lots of different NHS trusts in England.

And there have been lots of

little reviews into individual areas of the country but now wes streeting after hearing from lots of very angry families has decided there needs to be a much more kind of england-wide investigation so that is what he unveiled today and we can talk about why this is happening and what it all means because we're joined here in the studio by the bbc's social affairs correspondent michael buchanan hi michael hey adam and you've been covering these stories for a very long time

Yes, a very, very long time, at least a decade.

I've done a tour of places like Shrewsbury and Telford, Morecambe Bay, East Kent, Nottingham, and lots of other places in between.

I suppose what we've got to today is a recognition by government that this is no longer an issue with individual trusts, this is a nationwide issue.

And also here is Suzanne White, who's head of the medical negligence team at the law firm Lee Day, who's been campaigning on lots of this stuff as well.

Hello, Suzanne.

Hello.

Now, I think we chatted a few months ago when there was this cross-party group of MPs who'd been looking into lots of this stuff.

That's right.

Just remind us some of the things that you heard from mums and dads during that inquiry, because it was really quite, some of it was quite shocking.

The birth trauma inquiry.

Just...

Exactly what I've heard throughout my career.

And I echo what Michael says, that this has been going on for probably decades.

But just I mean, there are key issues like shortage of staff, but there's the training of midwives, the failure to listen to women.

And ultimately, just a lot of lack of empathy, which I found really quite shocking, given that you're in a medical environment where your mother and a baby giving birth.

How vulnerable do you need to get and not be listened to was is just totally shocking, but also not believed after.

And I think a lot of the scandals.

illustrated that mothers were ignored and not listened to, but also let them think it was their fault what had happened to them.

And I can't think of anything more cruel than that, frankly.

But yes, just not being, mothers not being listened to and not consented properly.

And Michael, when would this have crossed West Streeting the Health Secretary's desk as an issue?

I think he's been long aware of it and I think he's been having meetings with lots of the families who have been harmed or bereaved by NHS, poor maternity care, since he came into office.

But obviously he'd have been aware of it when he was a shadow health minister as well.

There is an overwhelming feeling with a lot of these families that his heart is in the right place, that he really gets it, that he really wants to help.

And what they have been doing, I suppose, over the last little while is pressurising them.

They would say helping them as well to try and get to the right place because they think essentially that what they term the health blob.

These are sort of organisations like NHS England, the Department of Health, the Care Quality Commission, the NHS Trust themselves.

They believe that they are quite resistant to improving care because it's hard work.

It's reputationally damaging.

And I think where they believe they've got to know is that there's a recognition within the Department of Health, at least, that you can no longer tell families what you're going to do.

You have to work with them.

And that's been really clear over the past week or so.

It's fair to say that the speech that Mr. Streeting gave today

was not the speech that I was told he was going to give a week ago.

He had come forward to these families that he has been meeting, particularly over the past week.

These are families who have been harmed in Nottingham and Shrewsbury and Telford and Leeds, for instance.

And he came forward and he had a set of proposals with them.

Now these proposals in broad terms were a repeat of doing stuff that had gone before.

So it was things like getting good trusts to buddy up with poor trusts and getting them to tell them what to do.

to try a scheme that NHS England run called the Maternity Improvement Programme, which has been proven to not work previously.

So if you just take one example of that, for instance, the buddying example, up until last Friday, Leeds Teaching Hospitals were rated for its maternity care by the CEQC as good.

The Care Quality Commission, the second highest ranking you can get.

So under this system, Leeds could well have gone into some trust that's rated lower and said, this is how you get better care.

But on Friday, there's a damning report into its care is now rated as inadequate.

And the body that's charged with making these decisions, the Care Quality Commission, is, in Wes Streeting's view himself, it is dysfunctional and failing.

So you had a body that was that's viewed as being failing by the government in charge of deciding what a good trust was and then going into another trust and telling them what to do.

And these are the kind of solutions that the that the NHS and the health service in broad terms comes up with.

And the families were saying we're not having that.

So, Suzanne, does it seem that actually what West Streeting announced today has got more oomph to it than maybe he would have been thinking about last week before he met all the families?

I think so, because the first thing that needs to be done is to listen to families.

And they have been ignored for a very long time because they've suffered the loss.

They've been party to the avoidable harm that's happened.

And the most heartbreaking for me is saying they say, please make sure, Suzanne, that this doesn't happen to another family.

And it is heartbreaking for me to say, I can't I can't reassure you.

But I do think that Wes has grabbed it with both hands and looked at it.

And I think he has listened to the families.

I get the tone from some of the families I speak to that they feel a bit more reassured about it.

And real patient campaigners like James Tickham, I had to look on Twitter today, seems to be happier about it.

So I think he has touched those families.

And I am more optimistic because, you know, as Michael says, this is not a trust here, a trust there.

This is a nationwide problem.

The trusts are not communicating with what's going wrong.

Nobody's learning lessons and everybody's just digging their head into the sand and saying this is a one off problem that we just need to deal with.

It's not.

It's nationwide.

It's a total scandal and we cannot have it anymore.

So Michael, just make it really clear then what this inquiry is going to look like.

Because we've been talking about a lot of different inquiries into a lot of different things the last few months in this country.

What's this one?

So this is a rapid investigation.

That's the phrase that Wes Streeting himself used.

And what it's basically going to do is it's going to have two strands to it.

There's going to be reviews into the 10 worst performing thrusts.

Which thrusts they are, he hasn't outlined yet.

There will definitely be a review into Leeds because that will either be one of these rapid reviews or else, given the size of the trust and the concerns from dozens of families, it may well have its own independent inquiry.

Decisions have not been made yet.

That will be one part of it.

The second part of it will be to look...

at the reports that have come out from previous scandals, Morecambe Bay, Shrewsbury, East Kent, for instance, to understand why those recommendations in the main haven't been taken forward and to come up with one clear set of actions.

He said rapid.

He wants the terms of reference of personnel to be announced by the end of July, with the review reporting by the end of December.

I am getting confused about what's been looked at and what's not been looked at because didn't Donna Ockenden, the very respected maternal health professor, do a big review of this stuff?

I remember that being in the headlines.

Yes.

In Nottingham.

She's in Nottingham at the moment, which has now become the biggest maternity inquiry in the history of the NHS.

Around two and a half thousand cases have been examined.

She's already carried out a review into Shrewsbury and Telford.

There's been a couple of other independent reviews carried into East Kent and Morecambe Bay.

They were done by a separate individual called Bill Kirkham.

Oh, so basically Donna Ockenden's become kind of like the guru on this subject, but she's never been able to have like a bird's eye view of the whole NHS in England.

Bill Kirkham did, as Michael was saying, and then Donna's been, she's a midwife by profession, and she's been looking into these other trusts as well, and Nottingham is what she's been looking at, and that was supposed to be over and done within, I think, probably a year.

She's over two years into it because more cases are coming forward.

I've got cases that are utterly, utterly heartbreaking.

But, yeah, she's not had that overall look at what is going on nationally in maternity, how the NHS joins up, you know, learns from mistakes, improves and listens to families and improves the quality of care.

It's just not happening.

The same things are happening over and over again.

Michael, is there a sense of places where this has done really well?

Like, are there other bright spots in England on this?

That's part of the problem.

If you look at the Care Quality Commission's rankings and set aside the concerns about the Care Quality Commission, because the stats about the

lots of the nhs trusts are bad yeah this is the point so two around two-thirds of units in england are have got safety issues are either requires improvement or inadequate on the cqc scale about a third of them are rated as good that was the latest data and none of them are rated as outstanding so when it comes to learning practices from a to b it's really really really difficult

And as I said, you know, if you look at the example of Leeds, ratings can go down as well as up.

There is a clear knowledge of what needs to happen.

Some of it is to do with staffing.

A lot of it is to do with culture.

Some of it is to do with the regulation and a lot of it is to do with the legal framework around it as well.

Because a lot of times what happens is when these families have been failed is they may eventually turn to the lawyers.

Most of them don't want to go to law.

They want a resolution.

They want answers.

And they try to get them.

And they end up with legal teams.

They don't get them.

Because they feel there's no other way of doing it.

And then you end up with the with with the lawyers for the NHS getting involved, and they push back really, really hard.

And they deny what's in front of their faces.

And the impact of that is not so much to save the NHS a few quid is to actually make it really difficult for the families to get over

the fact that they've lost a baby.

Because there have been some families I've spoken to where they have lost a child and the trust has dealt with them reasonably.

They don't forget they've lost a child, but they can begin to move on with the rest of their lives a little bit more easily.

But if they have been told, you know, that's not what happened.

Your memories are wrong.

It's the mother's fault.

Mother blame is a huge thing.

Then it can take them years to get over it.

And by the time they get to the point where the trust has perhaps admitted that, yes, it was our fault, the damage is done.

And undoing that damage can take years in itself.

It's just enduring pain for the families and I get completely frustrated when I have a case.

It's absolutely clear there was negligence, there was poor care.

Whatever's happened to the child or the mother was completely avoidable.

I will first thing talk to whoever's on the other side and say, make an admission.

I don't want you to put my family through more hell.

and utter distress and you know ultimately most of the time that does not happen and it really does frustrate me even though we want to work with defendant solicitors on the other side and the NHSR but it drags it on it increases costs is completely unnecessary and the worst thing it just completely compacts the distress for the families.

But isn't it just I mean there's lots of taxpayers money at stake here so doesn't the case have to be tested in court or addressed?

What happens, which I always challenge on the other side to the NHSR, they do this investigation.

I will get an investigation.

Obviously, I'll know the language.

The language will be careful.

But ultimately, you can see that there are criticisms.

It wasn't followed guidelines.

This was done too late.

We can't say for sure that that would have made any difference.

But I know that that is something they should be making an admission on.

And then they go, oh, no, we've all looked at this.

We've talked to all the witnesses.

We've, you know, talked to individuals involved.

But we're now going to do another investigation because this is a legal investigation.

So they're not doing due process.

This is absolute nonsense.

You know full well that this is negligent and you should be making a mission because you've already spent two years looking at this.

It's just it's not acceptable.

here's a tricky question for you both because it kind of gets into human psychology and the culture of organisations but surely if you're somebody who wants to become a midwife or somebody whose job is delivering babies you want to do that really well and you're a caring person how do caring people end up in maternity units where mums and babies get killed or injured or get terrible treatment

I've long asked that question, and I can't pretend I've got an answer to it.

I think what happens over a number of years is that culture develops.

Nobody, it's important to say, goes out to provide poor care.

It happens.

And sometimes, and I remember...

magnificently being at one inquest in which this young doctor had been on duty at 3.30am and she had been asked to extend a cut to do an emergency caesarean and as she put it in the inquest she had never touched a human body with a scalpel previously and she struggled

And her struggle contributed to a poor situation which ultimately, and ultimately what happened in that particular case is that the baby died a week later.

Now, her role in the death was quite small.

hear her evidence in court that day was absolutely astonishing because I know full well that she has learned an extraordinary amount from that experience and there are many arguments for saying she should never have been put through it and what was really touching about the whole thing is she was the last witness on this particular day is when the whole the proceedings had formally ended she went up to the mum who was sitting there and she just gave her a massive hug

And the two of them burst out crying.

And it was really, really impactful.

And I know that family quite well.

And it's one of those moments where they think that was a young doctor trying to do her best in appalling circumstances.

The reason I mentioned is because I don't think anybody goes out to give poor care.

She was she was in a situation she should never have been in.

But I think what happens is when the care goes wrong, the pressures from on high kick in.

And you're told that, you know, that you can't admit that it was your fault in the moment.

You can't say sorry because that could have legal ramifications.

Then you have investigations which are usually useless or often useless.

Lessons aren't learned.

The legal teams get involved.

And then you are so far away from the moment in which the error was made that everybody becomes defensive.

And I think sometimes also people are involved and don't actually know what they've done.

And so they've moved on to another trust and I've got a family saying to me, well, that was the midwife.

Where is she?

Does she not realise that she didn't monitor me properly?

Does she not realise that she didn't fill in the MUSE chart?

And they've moved on.

They don't even know what they've done or they've caused the baby to die or anything like that, which is absolutely astonishing.

So, you know, it is extremely difficult.

It is extremely difficult.

And it was going back to that all party group that you were involved in last year and rereading their report.

And I mean, there's loads of things in that that just really stick in your mind.

But the thing that I was reminded of from reading it the first time is just simple things like

the health visitor texting the mom saying congratulations can't wait to see you next week for my visit but the baby had died and they just didn't know the system hadn't found a way of letting them know

Just complete lack... Well, there's a lot of bureaucracy that's a problem.

I think midwife training has got to be looked at again because midwives are trained on the basis they're treating a pregnant woman.

They're actually just women, human beings, and things go wrong with them as well as them being pregnant.

I don't think they've got basic training.

I don't think there's enough senior midwives who are leaving now and then puts actually junior staff in the lurch, which is horrendous.

There's not proper training on hearts training.

monitoring um midwives are not up to that um also when women are in distress they're not listening to them a real problem is culture and i think you'll ask if you ask some of the campaigners um you know what it mode of delivery obsession with natural birth

Every birth is natural.

It's either vaginal or it's by a section.

Every natural birth.

And midwives not allowing mothers.

I had one young teacher, lovely young woman.

I had a massive baby.

The radiographer did the scan and said, this baby is really big.

I think you should see an obstetrician.

Midwife says no.

She goes in.

She has a fourth degree tear.

She has a stoma.

She is...

Fecally incontinent.

No, this is not acceptable.

You listen to women and what they want and that in itself will, you know, reduce the trauma involved because, you know, there's a lot of birth trauma, even if something's not negligent, if it's just somebody being really unkind to them during the birth.

And Michael, I know you're going to make another point, but you've got to go and do the other news now.

So you can make it very quickly.

I'm just going to say there's loads of data you can use to show the national problems.

I'm just going to leave you with one little fact, which is that maternal death among black women is approximately three times higher than it is for white women.

The gap has closed in recent years, but the reason it has closed is because there are more white women dying.

Wow.

What a point to end on.

Michael, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Suzanne, thanks to you too.

Thank you.

And in response to Leeds Teaching Hospital being downgraded by the Care Quality Commission a couple of days ago, we've got a statement from their chief executive, Professor Phil Wood, who said, my priority is to make sure we urgently take action to deliver these improvements.

The trust is committed to providing safe, compassionate care, he added, and he has already started making improvements, including in recruitment and addressing concerns around culture.

And then he concluded, we deliver more than 8,500 babies each year, and the vast majority of those are safe and positive experiences.

But we recognise that's not the experience of all families.

And that's all for this episode of Newscast.

A little reminder that you can subscribe to us if you never want to miss an episode.

Go to BBC Sounds, hit subscribe, and then if you turn on your notifications on your device for BBC Sounds, you'll get a buzz or a ping when we've finished recording an episode that's ready for you to listen to.

Just like we have done now because that's the end of this episode of Newscast.

Bye-bye.