obviously, therefore, it's a kind of punishment for this gap between the two groups of people. i would remind you that these people were very well treated, respected and never humiliated. that's why i'm so shocked by this ruling. the bbc�*s anbarasan ethirajan gave me this analysis on the case. what we know is that three employees, former employees of the hinduja family, this is regarding their employment with them, and according to the court documents, they were paid only $8 a day, more than 90% less than what the swiss average or minimum wage is in that country. now, the court ruled, they've given them various jail sentences. at the same time, they were cleared of these very serious charges of human trafficking because they were accused of withholding the passports of their employees. now, the interesting thing is the prosecutors pursued the case even though there was an out—of—court settlement with the employees — we don't know how much amount it was paid — but according to the court, they were underpaid, they were ill treated. and if they had got human trafficking case, that could have been a serious charge. now, this was based on taking advantage of these people from india, these workers from india, exploitation. so based on that, now these 4— to [ls—year sentences have been given. but none of them were in court. but as you heard from their lawyer, they're going to appeal. but this has come as a big surprise because they are one of the richest families in the uk, worth more than m5 billion, and questions will be raised how these wealthy people have so much money, why they were not paying to their employees, especially domestic help. indeed, anbarasan. and this isn't the first time we've heard cases of staff, often from really impoverished areas in south asia being employed by wealthy business people or diplomats in the west, and other cases have come to the courts, too. it's an open secret, especially in a city like geneva or in new york, where there are lots of un agencies there or diplomatic missions, people bring, the diplomats, their domestic help from their respective countries and they are not paid according to the local laws. for example, if you are in the uk, you have a minimum wage or in switzerland you have minimum wage. but they were usually paid according to a contract signed in a country like in india or pakistan, and they were paid very low. and there have been cases before. for example, a couple of months ago the federal court in australia, they ordered a fine of nearly $100,000 to former indian high commissioner navdeep suri because one of the employees worked with them for 13 months and she was not paid according to the australian wages. even though india said they had nojurisdiction, the australian court, the court said, "no, she worked in the house in a personal capacity, in the house of this high commissioner". the same with four filipinos in domestic help in a pakistani mission in geneva. this came in a few years ago. so a lot of wealthy people and diplomatic missions, they employ people from their respective countries or from different countries. so that is why many of these ngos, for example in france or in switzerland, they're getting together so that these people get their due salary. and it is an open secret, and now the governments, local governments are trying to deal with this problem. it's no secret that politics and money go hand in hand — and that you need it to run for office. which is why fundraising is almost as key as campaigning. today, we got the figures for campaign donations in the uk elections — labour received more than £45 million in the second week of the election campaign, 15 times more than the conservatives. labour's single largest donation between 6—i2june came from lord david sainsbury who gave £2.5 million, and the former autoglass boss gary lubner gave £900,000. holly valance, gave £50,000 to reform uk with the party raising £742,000, mostly through their chairman richard tice's company. the conservatives raised £292,500, less than the liberal democrats who raised £335,000. 0ur panellists tonight — joe twyman from the polling company — deltapoll — and melissa sigodo from the daily mirror. melissa, what do you make of those figures? melissa, what do you make of those fiaures? , . .,, ., figures? they are astounding, so much money _ figures? they are astounding, so much money is — figures? they are astounding, so much money is ploughed - figures? they are astounding, so much money is ploughed into - figures? they are astounding, so i much money is ploughed into these parties, and just listening to you readout the amounts reminded me of frank castor and how he donated, i think, about 5 million to the conservatives. it is worrying. 0bviously conservatives. it is worrying. obviously we have caps, but when you look at the us, and they don't have a cap, as i understand it. i think that that can cause some issues about around how much influence they have, the donators, over a party. when you looked at frank hester, and diane abbott, and what he said about that party, and how the party continued to receive donations after that story came out, it does make you wonder how much influence to these donors have, who is actually in charge. these donors have, who is actually in charae. , ., ., , in charge. joanne going to bring you in charge. joanne going to bring you in on this. when _ in charge. joanne going to bring you in on this. when you _ in charge. joanne going to bring you in on this. when you look— in charge. joanne going to bring you in on this. when you look at - in charge. joanne going to bring you in on this. when you look at the - in on this. when you look at the list, is anything that stands out? or the difference between a conservative and labour fundraising, i think is really key, and an indication of how the whole political landscape appears to be changing. the political landscape appears to be chanauin. , ., _ ., changing. the polls, obviously, for sometime. _ changing. the polls, obviously, for sometime. he _ changing. the polls, obviously, for some time, he in _ changing. the polls, obviously, for some time, he in fact _ changing. the polls, obviously, for some time, he in fact have - changing. the polls, obviously, forj some time, he in fact have pointed to sometime, he in fact have pointed to labour's— some time, he in fact have pointed to labour's dominance over the conservatives. for there to be such a difference — conservatives. for there to be such a difference in fundraising this time _ a difference in fundraising this time around only goes to enforce the -ap time around only goes to enforce the gap between the parties that we are seeing _ gap between the parties that we are seeing. quite frankly, the low expectations that conservative donors — expectations that conservative donors have. but the other thing i would _ donors have. but the other thing i would say— donors have. but the other thing i would say is the other amounts, certainly— would say is the other amounts, certainly compared to america, are very small. — certainly compared to america, are very small, but in a sense, it doesn't — very small, but in a sense, it doesn't really matter because if you -ive doesn't really matter because if you give the _ doesn't really matter because if you give the most money to a particular party, _ give the most money to a particular party, and — give the most money to a particular party, and it— give the most money to a particular party, and it doesn't matter whether that is— party, and it doesn't matter whether that is $100 million or £1 million, you will. _ that is $100 million or £1 million, you will, because of the way these things— you will, because of the way these things work, receive access, receive preferential— things work, receive access, receive preferential coverage and will be regarded — preferential coverage and will be regarded as a friend of the party in a way— regarded as a friend of the party in a way that— regarded as a friend of the party in a way that others, shall we say, are not. a way that others, shall we say, are not that _ a way that others, shall we say, are not that is — a way that others, shall we say, are not. that is the reality of politics. _ not. that is the reality of politics, the fact that the amounts are small— politics, the fact that the amounts are small in this country, however, which _ are small in this country, however, which gives— are small in this country, however, which gives me hope that perhaps the system _ which gives me hope that perhaps the system is _ which gives me hope that perhaps the system is not as bad as it could be, in the _ system is not as bad as it could be, in the united — system is not as bad as it could be, in the united states, particularly with elective —— elected representatives at to spend so much time fundraising because of the enormous amount involved. i also would _ enormous amount involved. i also would have — enormous amount involved. i also would have to say that holly valance has had _ would have to say that holly valance has had such a change since she used to appear— has had such a change since she used to appear on — has had such a change since she used to appear on hollyoaks, and now donating — to appear on hollyoaks, and now donating the money for reform uk. she also— donating the money for reform uk. she also donated money to donald trump. she is struggling to politics around the world. i know that you mentioned holly valance, is well as having mentioned jon bonjovi! tiktok says it offered the us government the power to temporarily shut the app down in an attempt to address concerns politicians had over data protection and national security concerns. in a legal submission as it fights against legislation that will ban the app in america, tik tok revealed it offered the so called "kill switch" offer two years ago. politicians who back the ban are concerned tik tok — which is owned by chinese parent company byte dance — could share users data from america with the chinese government — claims it and bytedance have always denied. earlier, i spoke to drew harwell. he's a technology reporter at the washington post. well, they acknowledge they offered a kill switch. this is something extraordinary — we've never seen a silicon valley company tell the government, "you can shut us off if you don't like us". and still the government turned them down. this was part of a long negotiations between tiktok and the government, and it really showed that tiktok was desperate. they wanted to prove themselves to the government. they wanted to hold off this idea of a nationwide ban, and yet, it all kind of fell apart, and now we're in court where this is all going to play out as part of a legal war. can you just bring us up to date, drew, on where we are with tiktok and how there is a battle in parliament and in the courts, clearly, to keep the app going while there's a growing movement of people who say it should be banned in america over national security concerns? yeah, there'sjust a lot of distrust around the world to tiktok in the us. you know, thejustice department and the biden administration have repeatedly said that this is an app that is too dangerous to ignore, and yet, they have not yet shared really any evidence showing that the chinese government has ever tampered with the algorithm or collected data on users. so, you know, this isjust going to be a really tough fight for tiktok. they're having to prove themselves in multiple government houses all around the world. and it's an uphill climb for them because no matter how many people use them, more than a billion people around the world, 170 million in the us, they're still hitting this point where they're always going to be facing suspicion over these chinese ties. and just briefly, in 20 seconds, what comes next now? next, the government responds. the us, they lobbed their own brief back at the court. then the court will decide whether they think this law is constitutional or not, then it could go to the supreme court where it would all be settled. 0ur panellists back in — joe twyman from the polling company, deltapoll, and melissa sigodo from the daily mirror. melissa, what is your take on this? in an ongoing tussle from people to save tiktok in america, and it seems like certainly in politics now come into congress, there is a big move to get it banned?— to get it banned? yes, there is a move to get it — to get it banned? yes, there is a move to get it banned, - to get it banned? yes, there is a move to get it banned, but - to get it banned? yes, there is a | move to get it banned, but at the same time, it is quite shocking to hear that tiktok... was rejected, because they wanted to get it banned, and they were really concerned about how the data is going to be used, but you would think that perhaps they would take that option, so i'm kind of wondering what the strings are being pulled in the background here, why that decision was made not to take up that decision was made not to take up that offer, if there was a truly a concern about data protection. joe, are you on it tiktok? you have mentioned quite a lot of popular culture references to me tonight, see strike me as someone who might be on it tiktok? trio. see strike me as someone who might be on it tiktok?— be on it tiktok? no, i'm over the are of be on it tiktok? no, i'm over the age of 25. _ be on it tiktok? no, i'm over the age of 25. so _ be on it tiktok? no, i'm over the age of 25. so it — be on it tiktok? no, i'm over the age of 25, so it would _ be on it tiktok? no, i'm over the age of 25, so it would be - age of 25, so it would be socially inappropriate for me to be on it tiktok! — inappropriate for me to be on it tiktok! |— inappropriate for me to be on it tiktok! ., inappropriate for me to be on it tiktok! . ., , , ., tiktok! i want to see your face, i can't see — tiktok! i want to see your face, i can't see your — tiktok! i want to see your face, i can't see your face, _ tiktok! i want to see your face, i can't see your face, there - tiktok! i want to see your face, i can't see your face, there you i tiktok! i want to see your face, i i can't see your face, there you are! i could ask you again, you on and you will say no! from politically heard, the kill switch was offered, and we had from an expert in the us saying he was pretty staggered that they offered that. fine saying he was pretty staggered that they offered that.— they offered that. one thing it in a street is a coming _ they offered that. one thing it in a street is a coming together, - they offered that. one thing it in a street is a coming together, of. they offered that. one thing it in a| street is a coming together, of the three _ street is a coming together, of the three really big issues that are facing — three really big issues that are facing most developed countries in the world — facing most developed countries in the world. it is the issue of data and privacy— the world. it is the issue of data and privacy and how that relates to bil and privacy and how that relates to big tech, _ and privacy and how that relates to big tech, the issue of globalisation, and the fact that they are — globalisation, and the fact that they are operating across borders, and also _ they are operating across borders, and also the issue of the rise of china — and also the issue of the rise of china no — and also the issue of the rise of china. no democracy really has an answer— china. no democracy really has an answer to— china. no democracy really has an answer to any of those questions and those _ answer to any of those questions and those are _ answer to any of those questions and those are big questions that will be forced _ those are big questions that will be forced in _ those are big questions that will be forced in on time and aren't going away— forced in on time and aren't going away any— forced in on time and aren't going away any time soon, because there are no— away any time soon, because there are no easy— away any time soon, because there are no easy solutions. those three combined — are no easy solutions. those three combined with this particular issue to create _ combined with this particular issue to create an especially difficult situation — to create an especially difficult situation which there is no obvious answer. _ situation which there is no obvious answer. or— situation which there is no obvious answer, or easy solution, and america — answer, or easy solution, and america seems to be taking a far more, _ america seems to be taking a far more. at — america seems to be taking a far more, at least so far, aggressive stance _ more, at least so far, aggressive stance in— more, at least so far, aggressive stance in the uk or the more, at least so far, aggressive stance in the uk orthe eu, but it would _ stance in the uk orthe eu, but it would he — stance in the uk orthe eu, but it would be interesting to see how those _ would be interesting to see how those other areas respond, once america — those other areas respond, once america has decided what it actually is going _ america has decided what it actually is going to _ america has decided what it actually is going to do. i imagine that in the end. — is going to do. i imagine that in the end, their plans will perhaps be watered _ the end, their plans will perhaps be watered down, in the final analysis, but we _ watered down, in the final analysis, but we witt— watered down, in the final analysis, but we will have to wait and see. [it is but we will have to wait and see. is worth but we will have to wait and see. it is worth noting that tiktok was banned in india, when i lived out there and there were a lot of people whose businesses relied on it tiktok. it is the same in the us, i guess, isn't it, melissa? yes tiktok. it is the same in the us, i guess, isn't it, melissa?— guess, isn't it, melissa? yes we have a big _ guess, isn't it, melissa? yes we have a big influence _ guess, isn't it, melissa? yes we have a big influence on - guess, isn't it, melissa? yes we have a big influence on culture i guess, isn't it, melissa? yes we| have a big influence on culture in the west, so losing tiktok would be a huge blow to that industry. perhaps that would be the reason why the us is hesitant to take that away. if they are to bring in a kill switch, that is something really to consider, to weigh up, that... i guess it is a negotiation tactic from tiktok as well, now that i think about it, but it is just interesting that the us government didn't take that option.— didn't take that option. also, joe, on that, didn't take that option. also, joe, on that. does _ didn't take that option. also, joe, on that, does it _ didn't take that option. also, joe, on that, does it show _ didn't take that option. also, joe, on that, does it show that - didn't take that option. also, joe, on that, does it show that some l on that, does it show that some of these tech companies are willing to cede to government? when i lived in america? i remember —— when i lived in america, i rememberthere america? i remember —— when i lived in america, i remember there was the idea of an apple phone being unlocked. but with this kill switch the tiktok, it looked like they were going to succeed? if the tiktok, it looked like they were going to succeed?— going to succeed? if we go back to the early 2000. — going to succeed? if we go back to the early 2000, and _ going to succeed? if we go back to the early 2000, and the _ going to succeed? if we go back to the early 2000, and the deal - going to succeed? if we go back to the early 2000, and the deal that| the early 2000, and the deal that microso