it'll be bedlam in the country, it's a very bad thing, it's a very bad precedent. as we said, it's the opening of a pandora's box and that's a very, a very sad thing that's happened with this whole situation. we can't have a country where every four years there is a cycle of political recrimination, where one administration attacks the prior administration. we'll get a judgment in due course, but both sides - will have the opportunity to appeal this to the supreme court - of the united states. it doesn't have to take up the case, but something as momentous - donald trump swaps the campaign trail for the court house. where does presidential immunity begin and end? we will look at the arguments heard in court today, and the implications of the court's pending decision. also tonight — postmasters were told that only they had access to their post office it systems. but was that strictly true?

the union representing the postmasters say they believe not only did fujitsu have access to the accounts, they could change them in real time. and more problems for boeing. both united and alaska say their mechanics have found loose bolts on a number of their 737 max 9s — the same aircraft that had a door plug blowout mid—flight over oregon last week. good evening. the decision which rests with the us appeals court in washington dc, is of fundemental importance, and not only to the 2024 election. the three judges must decide whether a us president, by virtue of the office he holds, is entitled to exceedingly broad protections from criminal prosecution, for statements and actions taken while in office. should donald trump be excused from the actions he took to overturn the 2020 election. and was his challenge,

to the result of that election, within his remit as commander in chief? his lawyers say, "yes, it was." six days out from the iowa caucuses, donald trump decided he would sit in on these argument today. he was not obliged to be there. but in the view of his campaign team, and on the evidence of previous court appearances, it would seem these legal challenges are hugely beneficial to his relection bid. here's he is speaking after the hearing. i think they feel this is the way they're going to try and win, and that's not the way it goes. it'll be bedlam in the country, it's a very bad thing, it's a very bad precedent. as we said, it's the opening of a pandora's box and that's a very, a very sad thing that's happened with this whole situation. when they talk about threat to democracy, that's your real threat to democracy, and ifeel that as a president, you have to have immunity, very simple. and if you don't, there is an example — if this case were lost on immunity,

and i did nothing wrong. live now to our correspondent gary 0 donoghue, who is outside the courthouse in washington. there are three jurists, gary, there are threejurists, gary, on this panel. the longest serving is the judge this panel. the longest serving is thejudge karen henderson. what she says or what she said this afternoon will be taken as a signal and she seemed, what i saw, to be quite sceptical that donald trump was acting within his remit.- sceptical that donald trump was acting within his remit. yes, and the tone of— acting within his remit. yes, and the tone of the _ acting within his remit. yes, and the tone of the question, - acting within his remit. yes, and . the tone of the question, generally, from thosejudges was, the tone of the question, generally, from those judges was, look, the tone of the question, generally, from thosejudges was, look, you know, what you're asking for would lead to some extraordinary situations, potentially. hypothetical, yes, but potentially real situations. a lot of them were asking, look, if you get this kind of brody immunity, a president would be able to —— broad immunity. avoid

impeachment, not be prosecuted, would be able to order the assassination of one of his political opponents. avoid prosecution, not get prosecuted. they were producing some examples they thought would make an a mockery of what natural justice they thought would make an a mockery of what naturaljustice would suggest. but on the other hand, donald trump's lawyers were pointing out, and i think this has some force as well, that the president does have to have some latitude of movement, some latitude of operation. 0therwise, movement, some latitude of operation. otherwise, there would be a constant cycle of people going after their opponents once they are out of office. the expectation is, gary, that it would go all the way to the supreme court come of this. does the supreme court have to take it up? does the supreme court have to take it u - ? ., ., , �* , does the supreme court have to take itu? ., ., ,�* , ., it up? no, it doesn't. it gets to ick and it up? no, it doesn't. it gets to pick and choose _ it up? no, it doesn't. it gets to pick and choose which - it up? no, it doesn't. it gets to pick and choose which cases i it up? no, it doesn't. it gets to pick and choose which cases it| it up? no, it doesn't. it gets to - pick and choose which cases it takes up. it takes up a very tiny portion of them. having said that, this is

an issue that's never been adjudicated on this, what is the constitutional position with the prosecution of a president in this way, because no former president has ever been charged with crimes. so we are in uncharted territory. so i think, the idea that they would inc. ignore it is unlikely. it introduces all sorts of delays. in their introduction, donald trump had swapped the campaign trail for the courtroom, i don't think there's that big of a distinction between the things here. this is part of the strategy of delay and legal position and argument that this is about his opponents weapon icing, persecuting rather than prosecuting him, and as you said, the money that he raises off the back of these sorts of things is enormous. when he was arraigned in new york, arraigned in georgia, he raised a million bucks

in the following 2a hours in each case. figs in the following 24 hours in each case. �* , y ., , , in the following 24 hours in each case. as you suggest, it's a fundamental _ case. as you suggest, it's a fundamental importance i case. as you suggest, it's a fundamental importance to | case. as you suggest, it's a - fundamental importance to the way the executive branch is seen, but it's important to the calendar as well. untilthey it's important to the calendar as well. until they come back and give us their ruling, whether this trial will go ahead as it is slated to do in the beginning of march.- will go ahead as it is slated to do in the beginning of march. yeah, i think that looks _ in the beginning of march. yeah, i think that looks very _ in the beginning of march. yeah, i think that looks very tight - in the beginning of march. yeah, i think that looks very tight now, to j think that looks very tight now, to be honest. this appeals court and this circuit, this dc circuit has been working very fast on this case. so it may well come back pretty quickly with its decision. whether the supreme court acts as far as this will have to wait and see, but march four i think is looking increasingly unlikely. 0f march four i think is looking increasingly unlikely. of course if this gets pushed later in the year it becomes even more of a general election issue, and don't forget donald trump could lose this case, go on trial by these four charges brought by the council to overturn

the election, could get convicted, could getjail time after an appeal perhaps. men could still get elected president. so this is not necessarily an impediment to him getting a second term in the white house. could end up pardoning himself, that's the other unknown of course. , ., ~ himself, that's the other unknown of course. , ., himself, that's the other unknown of course. ., . ., course. gary, thank you so much for that. course. gary, thank you so much for that- let's — course. gary, thank you so much for that- let's get _ course. gary, thank you so much for that. let's get some _ course. gary, thank you so much for that. let's get some legal— course. gary, thank you so much for that. let's get some legal expertise | that. let's get some legal expertise on this. let's speak to former federal prosecutorjoe moreno. let's dive into some of that that gary was talking about, some examples that were set out by the justice system. he asked his attorney this afternoon whether a president could sell military secrets to the enemy, could a president order seal team six to assassinate a political rival? the answer they came back, he would have to be speedily impeached and convicted. but he didn't seem to have an exact effective response whether he could be criminally convicted without that impeachment, what's your view on that? i’m

what's your view on that? i'm certainly _ what's your view on that? i'm certainly not _ what's your view on that? i'm certainly not donald trump's lawyer but if _ certainly not donald trump's lawyer but if i _ certainly not donald trump's lawyer but if i were, the supreme court has held in_ but if i were, the supreme court has held in civil— but if i were, the supreme court has held in civil cases, that residents have _ held in civil cases, that residents have absolute immunity from being sued, _ have absolute immunity from being sued. but _ have absolute immunity from being sued, but only for official acts. so basically— sued, but only for official acts. so basically carrying out their powers of the _ basically carrying out their powers of the presidency. i would make the same _ of the presidency. i would make the same argument here. it may or may not work, — same argument here. it may or may not work, but — same argument here. it may or may not work, but i would say, ok, orting — not work, but i would say, ok, 0rting assassinations, taking bribes, — 0rting assassinations, taking bribes, things like that, those are personal— bribes, things like that, those are personal actions, and no one is saying — personal actions, and no one is saying you _ personal actions, and no one is saying you should be immune from prosecution for those. if i were donald — prosecution for those. if i were donald trump's lawyers, i would say, look, _ donald trump's lawyers, i would say, look. i_ donald trump's lawyers, i would say, look. i felt _ donald trump's lawyers, i would say, look. i felt in — donald trump's lawyers, i would say, look, i felt in good faith that i was _ look, i felt in good faith that i was predicting the presidency, that i was _ was predicting the presidency, that i was correcting a wrong, and therefore _ i was correcting a wrong, and therefore i was acting in my official— therefore i was acting in my official capacity, therefore i should _ official capacity, therefore i should be immune from both civil and criminal_ should be immune from both civil and criminal prosecution. i'm not saying it'll were, _ criminal prosecution. i'm not saying it'llwere, in— criminal prosecution. i'm not saying it'll were, in fact that's the argument i would respond to in respect — argument i would respond to in respect to— argument i would respond to in respect to those allegations were made _

respect to those allegations were made today in court. the respect to those allegations were made today in court.— made today in court. the special counsel's office _ made today in court. the special counsel's office said _ made today in court. the special counsel's office said it _ made today in court. the special counsel's office said it would - made today in court. the special counsel's office said it would be | counsel's office said it would be awfully scary if it couldn't prosecute cases like trump's, if there was no mechanism to keep presidents from reserving the vote and remaining in power. were it not for the advice of white house counsel, donald trump might have done that. i counsel, donald trump might have done that. . ., , counsel, donald trump might have done that. _, , ., ., done that. i could see how an international— done that. i could see how an international audience - done that. i could see how an international audience might | done that. i could see how an - international audience might scratch their heads and say, how could america — their heads and say, how could america not work out this issue in the last— america not work out this issue in the last 200 years. and my response would _ the last 200 years. and my response would he, _ the last 200 years. and my response would be, we haven't had a donald trump _ would be, we haven't had a donald trump in _ would be, we haven't had a donald trump in the last 200 years. no former— trump in the last 200 years. no former president or current president has ever been charged with a crime, _ president has ever been charged with a crime, it— president has ever been charged with a crime, it certainly that we now have _ a crime, it certainly that we now have to — a crime, it certainly that we now have to grapple with it, we have to -et have to grapple with it, we have to get to _ have to grapple with it, we have to get to the — have to grapple with it, we have to get to the bottom of this. and look, i get to the bottom of this. and look, i would _ get to the bottom of this. and look, i would say, — get to the bottom of this. and look, i would say, like most legal things you go— i would say, like most legal things you go to — i would say, like most legal things you go to the original text, in this case _ you go to the original text, in this case the — you go to the original text, in this case the text of the constitution. the constitution permits for a president to be impeached removed, and then— president to be impeached removed, and then it _ president to be impeached removed, and then it says and then subject to

indictment. — and then it says and then subject to indictment, trial and prosecution. now i_ indictment, trial and prosecution. now i would say that clearly contemplates that a president, out of office. _ contemplates that a president, out of office, can be prosecuted for crimes— of office, can be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office. i don't _ crimes committed while in office. i don't think— crimes committed while in office. i don't think it requires impeachment to come _ don't think it requires impeachment to come first, like sequentially. so ithink— to come first, like sequentially. so i think that's the beginning and the end, i think that's the beginning and the end. i_ i think that's the beginning and the end. ithink— i think that's the beginning and the end, i think donald trump will lose in surrogate court, probably unanimously, and if this goes to the supreme _ unanimously, and if this goes to the supreme court as i think it will, most _ supreme court as i think it will, most likely he loses there as well. yeah, _ most likely he loses there as well. yeah, in _ most likely he loses there as well. yeah, in terms of the impeachment, joe, just one final point on this. if you recall, when mitch mcconnell, the most senior republican of the senate, was asked why he didn't vote in favour of impeachment in the second impeachment, he said because we have a criminaljustice system in this country, former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one. so when his view this argument that a president can only be impeached and then criminally and charged, doesn't hold weight either way. he then criminally and charged, doesn't hold weight either way.— then criminally and charged, doesn't hold weight either way. he made hot have realised —

hold weight either way. he made hot have realised how— hold weight either way. he made hot have realised how prescient - hold weight either way. he made hot have realised how prescient those i have realised how prescient those words _ have realised how prescient those words were when he said them, but i think— words were when he said them, but i think that's _ words were when he said them, but i think that's the common thought here try think that's the common thought here by anyone _ think that's the common thought here by anyone reading the plain text of the constitution. and looking at how our system — the constitution. and looking at how our system works, and the idea that, yes, broad _ our system works, and the idea that, yes, broad immunity from criminal prosecution — yes, broad immunity from criminal prosecutionjust yes, broad immunity from criminal prosecution just doesn't make yes, broad immunity from criminal prosecutionjust doesn't make sense, so i prosecutionjust doesn't make sense, so i think— prosecutionjust doesn't make sense, so i think that, again, this is a very— so i think that, again, this is a very very— so i think that, again, this is a very very uphill battle for donald trumo _ very very uphill battle for donald trum -. g , . very very uphill battle for donald trum. , ., ., , ., ., trump. just a really quick one on the ruling _ trump. just a really quick one on the ruling itself, _ trump. just a really quick one on the ruling itself, how— trump. just a really quick one on the ruling itself, how quickly i trump. just a really quick one on the ruling itself, how quickly will| the ruling itself, how quickly will it come? and there that it is this issue of whether he does go to the supreme court, whether the court case in the trial court can continue while that appeal is pending, how do you see that? {lilia while that appeal is pending, how do you see that?— you see that? ok, i think the immediate — you see that? ok, i think the immediate appeal _ you see that? ok, i think the immediate appeal comes i you see that? ok, i think the i immediate appeal comes quickly, within— immediate appeal comes quickly, within a _ immediate appeal comes quickly, within a few weeks. the supreme court, _ within a few weeks. the supreme court, no — within a few weeks. the supreme court, no one knows how they will take to _ court, no one knows how they will take to take — court, no one knows how they will take to take the case, it could be a while _ take to take the case, it could be a while before they do, and before they hear— while before they do, and before they hear arguments to issue a decision — they hear arguments to issue a decision. as for as a trial court, that's— decision. as for as a trial court, that's said _ decision. as for as a trial court, that's said cease right now, that should _ that's said cease right now, that should stop in its tracks while these — should stop in its tracks while these appeals make their way through these appeals make their way through the courts _ these appeals make their way through the courts. its these appeals make their way through the courts. �* , these appeals make their way through the courts. . , ., ~ these appeals make their way through the courts. . , ., ,, the courts. as ever, thank you very much for your— the courts. as ever, thank you very much for your expertise. _ the courts. as ever, thank you very much for your expertise. joe i the courts. as ever, thank you very| much for your expertise. joe marino there, formerfederal much for your expertise. joe marino

there, former federal prosecutor. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. let's look at some other stories making news. new figures show retail sales increased byjust i.7% across the uk in december, significantly lower than the 6.9% rise in 2022. the british retail consortium says shoppers held back on their festive spending due to a lack of confidence in the economy. the group warned shoppers and retailers of a "challenging" year ahead. the insurance firm admiral says pothole—related claims soared last year. they say customers made 40% more claims for pothole damage in 2023, at an average cost of over £3,000 per claim. higher tech vehicles and a general rise in the price of repairs is thought to be behind the spike. a double decker bus in kirkcaldy lost control yesterday, amid freezing rain, sending it crashing into parked cars, before coming to a stop against a garden wall. it had been on its way to a local primary school. luckily, no passengers were onboard

and no—one was injured. you're live with bbc news. the former post office boss paula vennells has said she will hand back her cbe with immediate effect amid the fallout of the horizon it scandal. in her statement, ms vennells said she was "truly sorry for the devastation caused to the subpostmasters and their families." "their lives, she added, were torn apart by being wrongly accused and wrongly prosecuted as a result of the horizon system." the justice secretary alex chalk said the government is actively considering introducing a new law to quash the convictions of subpostmasters caught up in the post office horizon it scandal. here's our deputy political editor, vicki young. it was an insult which added to their injury. new year's honours list. a moment depicted in the recent drama about the post office scandal. paula vennells has got the cbe. you're joking...! services to the post office.

today, it was all very different for paula vennells as she caved to mounting public pressure to hand back the honour. she had been chief executive of the post office from 2012—2019, a period when serious issues emerged about the horizon software. in her statement today, she said... it must be a bug. it must be...it must be a computer bug... lee castleton's story was one of those featured in the drama series. he went bankrupt after being falsely accused of stealing £25,000. so what does he make of paula vennells' decision? it kind of was a kick in the teeth back then. now it's full circle, i suppose, and we've got to a point where now it's acceptable that the moral

decision to hand it back is the right decision. the renewed publicity has made dealing with hundreds of wrongful convictions a priority for mp5. we can do something good, mr speaker, together, if the justice secretary will bring a simple bill to quash all 800 immediately. the suggestions he made is receiving active consideration. i expect to be able to make further announcements shortly. in normal circumstances, it would be almost unthinkable for parliament to get involved in the quashing of criminal convictions. it would be seen as an attack on the independence of the courts. but ministers accept this is an unprecedented situation and that's why they're considering such a radical move. cheering. in 2021, there were joyful scenes when the court of appeal cleared 39 former postmasters and mistresses who had been wrongly convicted. hundreds more hope they'll be able to celebrate soon. vicki young, bbc news, westminster.

for years, the post office had denied that remote access to branch accounts was possible. in 2015, in written evidence to a select committee inquiry, the company said... but that wasn't true. the post office only admitted it was in fact possible when it was left with no choice during a high court case in 2019. michael rudkin, who was formerly the union rep with the national federation of sub—postmasters, visited the fujitsu's bracknell office back in 2012 and was amazed to discover what access the team had. my chaperone actually started to alter some of the figures in branch of an office. i wish to this day that i'd recorded which office it was, but nonetheless i saw what i saw, i made the comment, "is this in real time?" he said, "yes."

i said, "are you absolutely sure?" "yes, i will alter the figures to prove to you that we can do this." he did that. i said to him, "for your information, as a federation representative, we've always been of the opinion that you cannot in any way, shape or form remotely access a sub—postmaster�*s accounts. " he said, "well, we can." i said, "where to go from here?", at which point he said, "i'll alter the figures back to where they were. "otherwise this sub—postmaster won't balance tonight," and then i was promptly escorted back upstairs with the look of the realisation of, "0ops, i've put my foot in it" — not from my point of view, from my chaperone's point of view. they ushered me out of the building as quickly as possible. the fujitsu staff used that third line access to correct data on the system when might have been corrupted in some way. but of course from a legal standpoint, the existence of unrestricted and unauditable access by fujitsu staff calls into question accusations that unexplained losses could only be caused by supostmaster

error or theft. caused by subpostmaster error or theft. ian henderson worked for the forensic investigators second sight, who were appointed in 2012 by mps. he is with us tonight, ian, good to see you. he is with us tonight, ian, good to see ou. ., . y he is with us tonight, ian, good to see ou. ., ., , i. he is with us tonight, ian, good to see ou. ., ., , ~ ., ., see you. how early did you know that fu'itsu had see you. how early did you know that fujitsu had remote _ see you. how early did you know that fujitsu had remote access _ see you. how early did you know that fujitsu had remote access to - see you. how early did you know that fujitsu had remote access to the i see you. how early did you know that fujitsu had remote access to the sub| fujitsu had remote access to the sub postmaster terminals? fujitsu had remote access to the sub postmasterterminals? i fujitsu had remote access to the sub postmaster terminals? i visited the fujitsu head office in september 2012 and met with their scene —— senior technical person. he was open about what fujitsu was doing, the capabilities they had and the day to day process they operated. he actually told me that they routinely had remote access to branch terminals and that they would often do that without the specific consent or even the knowledge of individual sub postmaster�*s. so or even the knowledge of individual sub postmaster�*s. 50 if or even the knowledge of individual sub postmaster's._ sub postmaster's. so if they were remotely accessing _ sub postmaster's. so if they were remotely accessing terminals, i sub postmaster's. so if they were i remotely accessing terminals, they would have to be relied on to be

trustworthy, following company protocol. from what you could see was there any policing of their activity? was there any policing of their activi ? , , ., activity? very limited. they had sort of a dual _ activity? very limited. they had sort of a dual control— activity? very limited. they had sort of a dual control function . activity? very limited. they had i sort of a dual control function that two people had to authorise the access, but there was no logging of any actions that were taken. in the light of that, i felt that the reliability of horizon from a subpostmaster�*s perspective was... did fujitsu have an interest in hiding the bugs and faults that were in the system? i’m hiding the bugs and faults that were in the system?— in the system? i'm aware that they actually disclosed _ in the system? i'm aware that they actually disclosed some _ in the system? i'm aware that they actually disclosed some of - in the system? i'm aware that they actually disclosed some of those i actually disclosed some of those bugs to the post office, as soon as i got involved, within a few weeks. they would disclose in writing to the post office, some of the bugs that they had identified. they were obviously correcting them. the first

disclosure that they made it, i think they said it took 12 months to identify the problems and to fix it, so for 12 months potentially errors were occurring in a number of branches. i must say however, most of the time horizon was working well, and it was only a minority of branches and transactions where there were problems. but branches and transactions where there were problems.— there were problems. but you'll know, there were problems. but you'll know. the _ there were problems. but you'll know, the suggestion _ there were problems. but you'll know, the suggestion is - there were problems. but you'll know, the suggestion is that i know, the suggestion is that postmasters and post—mistresses were having to pay for things that they were not responsible for. so is there any evidence you saw that would suggest things were being hidden among accounts that fujitsu had access to? it hidden among accounts that fu'itsu had access to?i had access to? it raises the question — had access to? it raises the question of— had access to? it raises the question of what _ had access to? it raises the question of what happened | had access to? it raises the l question of what happened to had access to? it raises the - question of what happened to those losses? what happened to those that were made by individuals subpostmaster. so post office is

benefiting, it's not entirely sort of clear exactly the impact on the totality of the transactions within fujitsu was. share totality of the transactions within fuiitsu was-— totality of the transactions within fu'itsu was. . , ., , , , ., fu'itsu was. are you surprised that a fujitsu was. are you surprised that a company — fujitsu was. are you surprised that a company worth 58 _ fujitsu was. are you surprised that a company worth 58 billion - fujitsu was. are you surprised that| a company worth 58 billion pounds, fujitsu, have not commented in light of what has happened in the past week or so, and from what you saw, do you think they should be in charge or able to bid for future public sector accounts?- charge or able to bid for future public sector accounts? well, bear in mind the _ public sector accounts? well, bear in mind the size _ public sector accounts? well, bear in mind the size of _ public sector accounts? well, bear in mind the size of horizon, i public sector accounts? well, bear in mind the size of horizon, at i public sector accounts? well, bear in mind the size of horizon, at a i in mind the size of horizon, at a time we were looking at a second site in 2012, we were told it was the largest nonmilitary it project in the whole of europe, and there is a limited number of organisations that can deliver that sort of functionality. fujitsu was truly one of them, maybe ibm was another. i'm not surprised that there was a limited amount of choice in terms of potential suppliers. i

limited amount of choice in terms of potential suppliers.— potential suppliers. i suppose from a defence lawyer's _ potential suppliers. i suppose from a defence lawyer's perspective, i potential suppliers. i suppose from j a defence lawyer's perspective, the very existence of third line access which we now know all about, calls into question the integrity of the system, and therefore would be important in any defence. but it seems to me, now that we know much more about the story, that that wasn't revealed until it was far too late for people. wasn't revealed until it was far too late for people-— late for people. that is also my understanding. _ late for people. that is also my understanding. i _ late for people. that is also my understanding. i mean, - late for people. that is also my i understanding. i mean, certainly, after september 2022, second site was or where prosecutions were taking place that they were potentially liable because of lack of audit trail, and other people unbeknownst to subpostmaster were eventually accessing the data. we never found out what was happening to the back office database. horizon, fujitsu admitted to directly accessing terminals, but they have the potential to access

they have the potential to access the main backend database and we don't know what was going on there. so when you see mps now responding somewhat urgently to the outcry that has come about as a result of this i tv drama, how early did you alert them to the findings that second site had discovered? in them to the findings that second site had discovered?— them to the findings that second site had discovered? in 2013, we continued to _ site had discovered? in 2013, we continued to do _ site had discovered? in 2013, we continued to do some _ site had discovered? in 2013, we continued to do some limited i site had discovered? in 2013, we l continued to do some limited work until 2015. we issued a number of reports. it was absolutely clear to us that the integrity of horizon was potentially in doubt because of the operation of fujitsu. ian potentially in doubt because of the operation of fujitsu. operation of fu'itsu. ian henderson, thank ou operation of fu'itsu. ian henderson, thank you so — operation of fujitsu. ian henderson, thank you so much _ operation of fujitsu. ian henderson, thank you so much for— operation of fujitsu. ian henderson, thank you so much for coming i operation of fujitsu. ian henderson, thank you so much for coming on i operation of fujitsu. ian henderson, | thank you so much for coming on the programme this evening. let me just read you a statement from fujitsu. they told us the inquiry had reinforced the impact on subpostmaster lives, and fujitsu has

apologise for the role in their suffering, fujitsu is fully supportive of the inquiry, it would be inappropriate for fujitsu to comment further at this time. some breaking news from ecuador. in the last hour, armed men wearing balaclavas burst into the studio of a public television station here, in the port city of guayaquil, taking hostage several journalists and staff members. live footage showed attackers, carrying rifles and grenades, forcing the crew onto the ground. we are trying to locate those pictures, we'll bring those to you as soon as we have them. the ecuadorian police have tweeted this picture, so it would seem that they are on site. there is a power struggle going on in ecuador, we will talk about it later in the

programme, but there were riots in many of the prisons on monday, and it seems the new president, he was only sworn in in november, is now in a rather open fight with the drug cartels in that country, and they are pushing back quite stiffly. with are pushing back quite stiffly. with a number of incidents now questioning the safety of the situation in ecuador. so we will bring you more news on that, it is a developing story, and i think one that will be of concern to the people across that region. do you stay with us, plenty more to come, we'll of course talk about the situation in israel, and some important meetings of state antony blinken is out with these israeli war cabinet, stay with us. hello there. tuesday was another cold but much sunnier day for the vast majority of the country. however, there were a few areas that saw some snow, like here injersey and the channel islands. also saw some across south—west england, for example, around bodmin moor and some across the far north of scotland, around the murray coast. still have something of a hangover, though, from the very wet

weather of last week. there are still 100 flood warnings in place with some communities still badly affected. satellite picture shows much sunnier weather then across the bulk of the country. we do have some thicker clouds just working in across the far north of scotland, and that's starting to bring a little bit of drizzle in. and as we go through this evening and overnight, the cloud across the north sea is going to thicken. so it will turn damp for these areas with drizzle becoming a bit more extensive. otherwise, it's cold and frosty with a threat of some icy stretches on roads and pavements as we head into wednesday morning. now, wednesday, that thicker cloud around across east scotland, eastern england, will be bringing some damp weather. you might find an odd spot going across north—west england and eastern counties of northern ireland. best of the sunshine, southern wales parts the south midlands, east anglia, southern parts of england. probably not too bad though for western scotland as well. wherever you are it will continue to be cold for the time of year with temperatures give or take around about six celsius. now heading into thursday, the same area of high pressure

is still dominating the weather picture, but it's changing orientation and so, too, are the winds — north—easterly winds this time bringing the cloud in and moving it further southwards. so the sunshine becoming a bit more limited to the far south of england. bright skies again across north western areas. the cloud, a little bit thinner, so there should be less in the way of drizzle for east scotland and around those eastern coastal areas of england. beyond that, through friday and the weekend, the weather pattern stays pretty quiet, really. some mist and fog patches around a bit of frost, cloud varying but mostly dry with some bright or sunny spells. however, into next week, for those of you who like wintry weather, we get a blast of northerly winds moving in. definitely with snow showers returning to northern areas. we could see an atlantic weather system move into that cold air and that could bring a more widespread area of disruptive snow. so we're pretty certain that snow showers will be across the north coming right down to low levels. question mark as to whether we see that atlantic system bringing a zone of more disruptive snow, but keep in touch with the forecast.

hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. america's top diplomat, secretary of state antony blinken, has told a news conference in tel aviv that the toll of the war on civilians in gaza, especially children, is too high.

we will come to all of that very shortly. first, let's get a check on the sport at the sport centre. here sarah. thank you very much, christian. let's start with football and the english league cup. the first of the semifinals is under way, between chelsea and middlesbrough. winners of the competition in 2004, middlesbrough went out of the fa cup to premier league aston villa at the weekend and are now hosting chelsea. in the first half, as you can see, it is goalless in the first leg at the riverside stadium. tomorrow, liverpool welcome fulham in the first leg of their semifinal. 0ne game in the coppa italia tonight. last year's losing finalists fiorentina will be hoping to go one further against bologna,

who beat inter in the last round. currently