This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK
If your favourite artist sells out, how much would you pay on a resale site?
Oh, this is a bit crazy.
The most I would have spent was probably for the Eros tour last year.
I think I spent like £700.
Lots of fans like Bridget are fed up with sky-high prices.
Now some musicians are asking the UK government to bring in a cap.
So can price caps on tickets actually stop the touts?
I'm Hannah Gelbart.
I'm the host of What In The World, your podcast for the stories that get people talking, from the BBC World Service.
And you can listen wherever you get your BBC podcasts.
This is the Global News Podcast from the BBC World Service.
I'm Charlotte Gallagher, and at 6 Hours GMT on Friday, the 14th of November, these are our main stories.
The BBC has apologised to Donald Trump for a documentary that spliced together parts of his speech on the day of the Capitol riots, but has rejected his demands for compensation.
The former prime minister of Bangladesh denies committing crimes against humanity during a deadly crackdown on an uprising last year.
Environmental campaigners.
At the COP30 climate talk say, 1600 delegates from the oil, gas and coal industries are in attendance, outnumbering most countries' delegations.
Also in this podcast, the row between the Israeli government and the army radio station and A rocket owned by the Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, is headed to Mars.
We begin with a story about the BBC itself and Donald Trump's threat to sue the corporation for a billion dollars over a news programme broadcast last year.
An episode of the documentary series Panorama put together two parts of President Trump's speech on the day of the Capitol riots.
In a way the BBC itself has said gave the mistaken impression he had made a direct call for violent action.
The BBC's Director General and Head of News have resigned.
Mr Trump's lawyers have demanded an apology, a retraction and financial compensation, saying they will file a defamation lawsuit if those conditions are not met.
On Thursday, the BBC released this statement, laying out its response to President Trump.
Lawyers for the BBC have written to President Trump's legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday.
BBC Chair, Samir Shah, has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the corporation are sorry for the edit of the President's speech on 6th January 2021, which featured in the programme.
The BBC has no plans to rebroadcast the documentary Trump, A Second Chance on any BBC platforms.
While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree.
There is a basis for a defamation claim.
Our culture and media editor, Katie Razzell, talked us through the arguments made by BBC lawyers in their letter to Mr Trump's legal team.
The first point that they make is that the BBC did not distribute the Panorama programme on American channels.
And they point out that when it was on the iPlayer it was geographically restricted to viewers in the UK.
Essentially what they're saying.
There is people couldn't have watched it in America on any of the American channels.
So if Donald Trump is claiming it would affect American voters, for example because it was put out ahead of the election, well they're saying it couldn't have done that.
They say he was talking in this legal letter.
It was about the injury and overwhelming reputational and financial harm to Donald Trump.
And the BBC is saying in this letter it didn't cause you overwhelming reputational or financial harm effectively because you were re-elected.
So where's the harm?
Ben, there's this talk about malice, whether it was malicious.
What they're arguing the BBC in this legal letter is that the editing of that clip.
It was used to convey a much broader point about what happened on the day and how that speech was received at the time.
And they're pointing out it wasn't designed to mislead anybody.
It was simply an edit made to shorten a long speech into a shorter, tiny bit of speech and convey the way the speech landed.
It wasn't done with malice.
It was done, they say, by someone who thought they were condensing Donald Trump's message.
They're also pointing out that the clip was never intended to be considered in isolation.
So the BBC is saying it is 12 seconds of an hour long programme.
And that programme followed Donald Trump's supporters and contained lots of pro Donald Trump messages within it.
So they're saying you can't consider it an isolation.
This was a program where we heard a lot from people about why they support Donald Trump and why they follow him and why they wanted him to be president.
And then their last argument in this legal letter.
It's a slightly more technical one, but essentially the threshold for defamation if you're a political figure in the US is really high.
And so what the BBC lawyers are saying is under US law it's sort of put like this an opinion on a matter of public concern and political speech is heavily protected under defamation law in the US.
But essentially the bottom line is they are standing their ground and they're saying you don't have a legal case.
We're not giving you any money.
Katie Razzell, let's get the view from Washington now with our North America editor, Sarah Smith.
We haven't yet heard from the President or from the White House since the BBC sent that apology.
We did hear from him a couple of days ago when he said he felt obligated to sue the BBC because...
It had defrauded the public, he said, and you can't allow people to do that.
He claimed the BBC had butchered what he called his very calming, very beautiful speech on the 6th of January and made it sound radical.
And we heard from his press secretary who said the president now believes the BBC is a leftist propaganda machine who had dishonestly edited that Panorama speech and that that was very clearly fake news.
The other thing we know is that the president has taken on two media companies in the last few months ABC News and CBS News.
He sued them.
And he ended up settling those cases for $15 million and $16 million each.
That was Sarah Smith.
The former Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, has denied committing crimes against humanity during a deadly crackdown on last year's uprising that ousted her.
She told the BBC her trial in absentia was a farce orchestrated by a kangaroo court.
A tribunal in Dhaka is due to give its judgment against the former Bangladeshi premier and two other officials on Monday.
Prosecutors have demanded the death penalty.
In her first interview with the BBC since she fled to India in August 2024, Sheikh Hasina claimed that the trial was destined to deliver what she called a preordained guilty verdict.
She said the hundreds of killings during the anti-government demonstrations last year were tragic but categorically denied personally ordering security forces to fire at protesters in the weeks before she fled.
UN human rights investigators have said up to 1400 people were killed when security forces used systematic deadly violence against protesters.
Asked about the discovery of secret jails holding prisoners who had been detained for years without any legal process, She said she didn't have any knowledge of them.
She also called for the ban on her Awami League party to be lifted so that it can take part in national elections scheduled for early next year.
Ms.
Asina and other senior members of her former government are also facing trial for corruption in a separate court.
Charges they deny and Barisan Etirajan.
The COP30 climate talks taking place in the Brazilian city of Belém have brought together politicians, scientists and activists from around the world.
But they've also attracted more than 1,600 delegates from the coal, oil and gas industries.
That's more than has been sent by any single country apart from Brazil.
Our environment correspondent Matt McGrath reports.
Well, security is tight here at the COP and everybody who comes in and out has to have a badge.
And that badge shows a lot of information, including where you're from, who you work for, what country you're from.
Every year, environmental activists analyse the information on badges and they use that information to work out who are the people who work for coal, oil and gas companies.
A little earlier, I spoke to Adrian Salazar from the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance.
That's one of the groups that's involved in compiling the data.
And he says this year sees the highest proportion of fossil fuel delegates at a COP since 2021.
It has increased substantially in the last several years.
And because this is a smaller cup in total aggregate numbers, we're also seeing a higher proportion.
So about one in 25 participants. here are representing fossil fuel industry.
Okay, that sounds like a big number when you say it all together that's the 1600, but it's only 3 or so of the overall total of people here.
You could say 97% of people here are not representing fossil fuel interests.
What's so worrying about having 3 of people here representing coal, oil and gas or banks associated with that?
What's wrong with that?
That's a fair question.
I think what we have to look at is the amount of power these corporations and fossil fuel representatives are able to yield in their presence here.
And many of them I think about 599 are on party badges, meaning that they have access to the negotiations.
They may be sitting in delegations that are representing countries.
And so fossil fuel industry and this has been the case for years is, in fact, colluding with governments in order to influence this process.
Well, are they being successful, though?
Because, you know, we say there's 1,600 of them here.
But over the last number of years we've had recognition that coal is going to be phased out or phased down in Glasgow.
Two years ago in Dubai, we had an agreement on a transition away from fossil fuels.
These lobbyists are not doing such a great job.
They have been engaged in a PR battle to slow down the transition of the economy.
And you're telling me because it's 2025, they've changed their minds?
I don't think so.
That was Adrian Salazar speaking, who's part of the coalition called Kick Big Polluters Out.
Now that group wants to see all these fossil fuel delegates who are connected to coal, oil and gas ejected from these talks.
However, I think that's never going to happen.
The COP, for all its flaws, is open to everyone and will likely remain that way.
Matt McGraw.
Germany's government has agreed a new military service plan to boost troop numbers, as Berlin aims to create Europe's strongest conventional army.
The plan, which politicians will vote on later this year, comes amid the looming threat posed by Russia and other security concerns.
But many Germans are wary of the country rearming and inching towards conscription.
Our correspondent Jessica Parker sent this report from Dortmund.
I'm just walking through an army training base in West Germany where we've been watching recruits do a variety of exercises.
And it comes as the German government, the governing parties, have struck a deal on military service.
Now, what they're planning to put to Parliament is that.
18-year-olds would be sent a questionnaire about their willingness, their ability to serve.
18-year-old men would in future, also have to attend a physical to see about their fitness, things like that.
For now the government is not introducing a mandatory element of conscription, not making young people join the army, but they've left that door open if they don't get enough recruits to boost numbers through volunteers.
But it's a big moment for Germany because, due to its role in the past as an aggressor in Europe In that post-war period, there's often been this sense of a shyness, a military meekness, not wanting to show military might.
It feels like that is partly changing, although plenty of people in Germany are still pretty worried about what they see as rearmament and expanding Germany's military.
More troops is only part of the picture as Germany looks to step up its role in European security.
Last week I spoke with Armin Papberger, the boss of German defence giant Rheinmetall.
Chancellor Merz has talked about wanting Germany to have Europe's strongest conventional army.
That's going to require manpower, but it's also going to require hardware.
Is that realistic?
It is.
It is realistic.
You think Germany could get to that position?
The German government makes very clear decisions that we have to grow strong on vehicles, on ammunitions.
We have to have our own satellite competences.
We do much, much more on the electronics and artificial intelligence on the defense than ever, and they invest.
They will reach that target.
When do you think Germany could have Europe's strongest conventional army?
In five years.
In five years?
Many people, including in Germany, fear...
Rearmament, remilitarisation can lead to war, as Germany's own history has shown.
How do you respond to those fears?
Because obviously your company is making a lot of money through rearmament.
We have democracy.
I'm very happy to have this democracy.
And what I see at the moment is that more than 70 of the people in Germany say that we have to do more to defend our country, to defend Europe and to help NATO.
Looking at some of what Chancellor Mertz has spoken about, about the state of peace or war is it your sense that we're in a cold war in Europe at the moment, experiencing even a hybrid war?
It doesn't matter how you call it at the end of the day.
The only thing is what for me is important, we are not in a very peaceful time.
The reason is also very clear, because we see every day that there are some smaller attacks from some countries, or only from one country, which is testing us if we are prepared or if we are not prepared.
Do you fear a future conflict involving Germany?
I have no glass ball.
Nobody knows that.
The army says, and also the government says, we have to prepare ourselves, that we are strong enough, that nobody is attacking us.
That report by Jessica Parker.
Still to come in this podcast.
I have a little terrier that's eight inches off the ground and has a sort of round floofy head.
His jaws really wouldn't survive, I don't think, having to sort of scavenge and predate in the wild.
How dogs evolved from prehistoric wolves to our cuddly companions...
If your favourite artist sells out, how much would you pay on a resale site?
Oh, this is a bit crazy.
The most I would have spent was probably for the Eros tour last year.
I think I spent like £700.
Lots of fans like Bridget are fed up with sky-high prices.
Now some musicians are asking the UK government to bring in a cap.
So can price caps on tickets actually stop the touts?
I'm Hannah Gelbart.
I'm the host of What In The World, your podcast for the stories that get people talking, from the BBC World Service.
And you can listen wherever you get your BBC podcasts.
Every day.
For 75 years, the Israeli military's own radio station has broadcast news, music and talk programmes to thousands of listeners.
Israeli army radio has become one of the most popular stations with soldiers and civilians alike.
But the defence minister, Israel Katz, has announced it will be shut down on March 1st next year.
He said Army Radio was established as a voice for IDF soldiers and their families not, in his words, as a platform for opinions, many of which attack the IDF and its soldiers.
Nachman Shai is a former editor-in-chief of Army Radio and later served as a member of the Israeli parliament.
My colleague Tim Franks asked him what he made of Mr Katz's decision.
There is another big camp of Israelis I would say at least half of the Israeli public that like the station very much and would like to continue with the broadcasting.
It's odd though, isn't it?
I mean, to have a sort of an arm of the Israeli army broadcasting to the nation.
That's a very unique radio station.
I'm sure that if we asked today whether we should start a radio, a military radio or army radio, we wouldn't do it.
But it started in 1950.
It was a different Israel.
Then David Ben-Gurion was on.
The prime minister and the situation was totally different.
But the fact is that it became an extremely popular radio station which serves and caters to the center of the Israeli population, to audiences of hundreds of thousands, of sometimes millions of people.
There is no reason.
The reason is not professional.
I have no doubt.
The reason is political, not professional.
But you must agree Nachman, that I mean just on principle.
I mean it must be moments of awkwardness for the IDF.
I mean, if you've got journalists asking really tough questions of it.
Yes, I can remember some situations very, very strange in the past when a young soldier wearing uniform asked to interview the prime minister.
But in the past few years, they've changed the...
The system and only civilians are dealing with the political staff, not soldiers, not young men and women in uniform.
So they themselves understand the abnormality of the situation.
But at the same time, again, the point is that Galetsa, the army radio, is a public service.
This government has launched a kind of a war on what I believe is a basic democratic institute.
And freedom of expression and freedom of press is extremely important ingredients and components of freedom of the press.
And that's why I believe the decision was made on that background.
That was Nachman Shai speaking to Tim Franks.
Scientists say tens of thousands of southern elephant seals have been killed in an outbreak of bird flu on South Georgia, a remote island in the South Atlantic.
It's the site of the world's biggest population of the seals, but researchers estimate that half of all breeding females could now be dead.
Our science correspondent, Helen Briggs, has been speaking to my colleague, Janat Jalil.
Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey have been looking at populations of elephant seals on South Georgia.
These are the largest known species of seal.
They have these sort of trunk-like noses, which is why they're called elephant seals.
And they spend most of their lives at sea.
They dive really deep into the ocean, spend most of their lives out there on the ocean waves.
But then they come to beaches to breed.
So South Georgia is a really important breeding ground for these seals.
So it's quite remote.
It's difficult to actually do research there.
But they've been doing drone surveys there.
And they found this dramatic decline.
So they looked at the data in 2022.
They know that this avian flu arrived late in 2023.
And then they've seen this massive decline in numbers when they measured them in 2024.
So they looked at three large breeding colonies on the island.
So if you extrapolate out the colony as a whole, 53000 is their calculation of missing females across this entire population of elephant seals.
And they're saying that this really could have very serious repercussions for elephant seals the population for years to come, for decades to come.
And Helen, these are absolutely massive creatures.
They're up to nearly six metres in length.
They can weigh as much as 3.7 tonnes.
So why would they be so badly affected by avian flu?
So we know that this particular type of avian flu H5N1, has been around for for decades, and it's spreading all over the world.
Primarily it spreads between birds, but now migratory birds are sort of spreading it across the world, so it's gone from North America to South America and it's got into marine mammals.
So we now know that it can affect other wildlife other than birds.
And it's caused mass die-offs of seals in other parts of the world, notably in Argentina recently.
And what's happening here in South Georgia seems to be mirroring that situation.
Elephant seals, they're top predators.
They're the top of the food chain.
So if you have a big decline in them, then it will affect other species as well, because everything is interconnected in this complex web of life.
Helen Briggs.
Blue Origin, the space company owned by Jeff Bezos, has launched its largest reusable rocket and successfully landed its booster at sea.
It comes as the Amazon founder is trying to challenge Elon Musk's grip on the market.
Anna Aslam reports.
First motion.
That's the moment the New Glenn rocket blasted off from Cape Canaveral in Florida.
It successfully deployed NASA satellites that will reach Mars in 22 months to measure the planet's atmosphere and magnetic field.
It's the first science payload Blue Origin has launched for a paying customer, and the company had another breakthrough too.
When, nine minutes into the flight, the reusable booster powering the rocket stopped, separated and touched down on a floating barge in the Atlantic Ocean.
The control room cheered as the 17-story tall booster landed.
It's a huge engineering feat and a first for Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket, which has faced severe delays during development.
The company celebrated the milestone, but sea landings are a norm for its rival SpaceX, which pioneered the maneuver and has completed it 500 times.
Analysts say Elon Musk's company has had a more aggressive approach to launches and testing, and that Blue Origin is now adopting a more risk-taking culture to try and catch up in the space race.
It's long been thought that dogs developed into the many breeds that exist today mainly through human breeding.
But scientists looking at skulls dating back thousands of years have now found our canine companions began changing shape and form much earlier than previously thought, as they evolved from wolves to domestic dogs.
Dr Carly Amin from the University of Exeter explained that their finds date back to the Middle Stone Age or Mesolithic period.
Almost half of the diversity we see in modern dog breeds today is already present in dog populations by the Mesolithic, which is what we found, which is really surprising and really starts to challenge the ideas about where dog diversity has come from.
Our science correspondent Victoria Gill told us more.
We know that dog domestication is a big part of the human story.
There's evidence that wolves and humans started living alongside of each other 30,000 years ago.
But there's still lots of questions about just how that changed us, changed our societies, changed the dog.
And what these researchers have looked at is actually the physicality of the dog, by looking at skulls.
So they actually carried out an analysis, an examination of hundreds of dog and wolf skulls over tens of thousands of years.
Some of them were up to 50,000 years old.
And what they've seen is that 10 or 11000 years ago, between 10 and 11000 years ago, the dog started to change shape.
Its head started to change shape.
So as dogs were domesticated, they physically changed.
But not only did they change, they became very diverse.
There was a lot of different sizes and shapes of dogs.
So much of the diversity that we see today, that we think is driven by lots of very deliberate, selective breeding by, you know, the Victorian tastes and their kennel clubs, and Actually a lot of that was evident thousands of years ago in the Middle Stone Age.
And why do we think that happened?
It's a really good question.
There's loads of theories about why dogs and humans came together.
And you know, being able to see human intent and motivation from the archaeological record is not so easy.
But there's theories about how wolves maybe started living around communities of people because they were scavenging for food.
And maybe humans must have had some kind of benefit from that.
Dogs might have cleaned up messy carcasses that otherwise would have attracted pests.
They might have raised the alarm and barked and howled when there were predators coming by.
So we started to get this kind of mutual benefit.
That then developed into wolves becoming the first domesticated animal.
They obviously brought us so much benefit as working animals, as companions, that we started to bring them into our lives and breed them.
We can't tell from this study whether people had some kind of intention to actually breed dogs that had a particular shaped head.
You know the way that we do these days, where we have a particular breed that we find cute and appealing.
We can't see that from the archaeological record.
But what we can see was that was happening.
That was happening millennia ago, you know, way before we had any kind of breeding standards that we have today.
So something was going on that meant that people and their actions and their living alongside humans was physically just transforming the dog fundamentally.
And the dogs of today are very different from the dogs of thousands of years ago.
For instance, I know your dog likes cheesy snacks.
Yeah, I don't think he'd survive in the wild.
It's interesting because they were looking at differences in the skull.
In this study they see the shape shift from kind of wolf the long slender snouted wolf with the powerful jaws that was a predator into the kind of snubbier, shorter snouted, wider headed dog.
I have a little terrier that's kind of, you know, eight inches off the ground and has a sort of round floofy head.
So you know, his jaws really wouldn't survive, I don't think, having to sort of scavenge and predate in the wild.
So it just goes to show how much human influence has really driven what dogs are today.
That was Helen Briggs.
And that's all from us for now, but there will be a new edition of the Global News Podcast later.
If you want to comment on this podcast or the topics covered in it, you can send us an email.
The address is globalpodcast at bbc.co.uk.
You can also find us on X at BBC World Service.
Use the hashtag Global News Pod.
This edition was produced by Peter Goffin and Stephen Yensen.
It was mixed by Martin Baker.
The editor is Karen Martin.
I'm Charlotte Gallagher.
Until next time, goodbye.
