few into the afternoon. may be a few breaks on cloud for northern ireland, the north—west or both england and wales. temperatures, give or take about 6 degrees, but colder than that in scotland. there might be one or two marketplaces that don't get above freezing all day after that cold start. on saturday, the wind goes through to a more westerly direction. more chance of the cloud braking to give sunny spells. if few patches of brain coming to north scotland and the odd spit in the air for northern ireland. temperatures, six or 7 degrees. still a little bit below average. as we go to sunday and monday we started a northerly wind. snow showers are going to move into northern scotland. they could bring one or two market issues here. there is the potential of seeing something more widespread later on in the week. there is still quite a bit of uncertainty about that. it looks like some of us next week will see the return of some snowfall.

tonight, the uk appears to be on the brink of taking military action with the us against houthi rebels who've been attacking ships in the red sea. could parliament be recalled to discuss any uk military response? tonight we'll guide you step by step through this latest international crisis with our defence editor mark urban and our political editor nick watt. also tonight. breathtaking testimony from a fraud investigator employed by the post office to examine shortfalls at branches across the country — his evidence helped wrongly convict multiple subpostmasters he investigated this ex—branch manager who was suspended by the post office after shortfalls and fraud accusations.

you have been told there was a growing body of cases and that in itself was not sufficient for you the question the reliability of the horizon system. because i am not technically minded. i would expect that to come from people above. shazia saddiq was with us last night and is back tonight. she was at the inquiry today to look him in the eye and hear his words. and israel on trial — accused of genocide in gaza at the international court ofjustice in the hague by south africa vehemently deny that. its victims are broadcasting their on destruction in the wane hope that the world might do something. in the wane hope that the world might do something. iraeli government spokemsn

eylon levy is live in the studio — we'll talk to him too about the prospect of an imment good evening. the prime minster has held an emergency cabinet briefing tonight as the uk and the united states prepare to launch military strikes against iranian backed houthi rebels in yemen. it comes after a series of attacks on ships in the red sea, including a barrage of rockets, drones and cruise missiles apparently fired at western warships on tuesday. there are fears the attacks could escalate the conflict between israel and hamas across the wider region. let's go straight to mark and nick. nick, what's happening? victoria there is a strong expectation in whitehall that we will be hearing from president biden in the coming hours, there is a belief that could well be at midnight tonight. now, when a president makes a statement in those circumstances, that is not usually to say what they might do, it is

usually to say what they have already started to do. should say i have not had that confirmed. i am not a white house correspondent but thatis not a white house correspondent but that is the strong belief, all the action tonight would suggest we are heading in that direction, so as you say, rishi sunak had a cabinet conference call, thenjohn healey the shadow defence secretary and sir lindsay hoyle the speaker, they were called in for a briefing in whitehall, keir starmerjoined that remotely, what do they have in common? they are privy counsellors and that means they could be briefed and that means they could be briefed and would have been briefed on confidential terms, the current plan is not to recall parliament, but the next sitting will be on monday, and you would expect a prime ministerial statement at that point. but the snp, plaid cymru and the liberal democrats, they are saying that parliament should be recalled, lindsay hoyle, the speaker, he is historically in favour of parliament sitting on such occasions, he usually has a habit of expressing

his mind pretty clearly but launching military action is a royal prerogative power which mean it rests with the prime minister, he can do this, without consulting parliament, but through have been precedents in recent years of substantive votes in parliament. 2003 iraq war, tony blair won that, 2013 against the assad regime after that chemical attack, david cameron lost that but there have been other examples of military action without a vote and debate in parliament. marks explain why the uk's potentially about to join military action, alongside the us against the iran backed houthi rebels. the? iran backed houthi rebels. they started action _ iran backed houthi rebels. they started action after _ iran backed houthi rebels. they started action after the - iran backed houthi rebels. they started action after the events of the 7th _ started action after the events of the 7th october, they say in support of the _ the 7th october, they say in support of the palestinian people and hamas and against israeli interest but the truth _ and against israeli interest but the truth is _ and against israeli interest but the truth is the way they have conducted their strikes and boarding operation, they have hit ships from all over_ operation, they have hit ships from all over the — operation, they have hit ships from all over the place, they have affected _ all over the place, they have affected mariners from india, greece, — affected mariners from india, greece, the philippines, they have

hardly— greece, the philippines, they have hardly had — greece, the philippines, they have hardly had any effect on the israelis _ hardly had any effect on the israelis but a big effect on initial shipping — israelis but a big effect on initial shipping most of which is going round _ shipping most of which is going round south africa rather than the red sea. — round south africa rather than the red sea, 15% of world trade goes through— red sea, 15% of world trade goes through those water, and the uk has calculated _ through those water, and the uk has calculated there is a potential 3% hit to— calculated there is a potential 3% hit to the — calculated there is a potential 3% hit to the uk economy. it is inflationary, if the ships have to id inflationary, if the ships have to go further, _ inflationary, if the ships have to go further, it adds cost, so that is what _ go further, it adds cost, so that is what is _ go further, it adds cost, so that is what is at — go further, it adds cost, so that is what is at stake, the uk regards itself— what is at stake, the uk regards itself as— what is at stake, the uk regards itself as a — what is at stake, the uk regards itself as a maritime power, a security— itself as a maritime power, a security council power and therefore the freedom of navigation is an important _ the freedom of navigation is an important issue, it goes beyond nationai— important issue, it goes beyond national interests, and so, the uk and the _ national interests, and so, the uk and the us—led coalitionjoined in this warning just over a week ago, to the _ this warning just over a week ago, to the houthis, to stop this, and of course, _ to the houthis, to stop this, and of course, they— to the houthis, to stop this, and of course, they haven't, they have doubled — course, they haven't, they have doubled down, and that has made it a matter— a tanker seized in the gulf of oman by the iranian navy, a missile fired this evening by houthi rebels.

and that follows tuesday night's incident in which they fired a salvo of missiles and drones at a british warship and other international vessels in the waters off yemen. western credibility is now on the line. i think the us will up the game, the us and the ten or so countries that are part of this, this coalition, to protect shipping in the red sea. i think they will up their game and strike at some of the weapons making facilities in yemen. but they will be very careful not to make this look like it's going to be a wider war with yemen or enough to trigger iran to expand this conflict. i think the us is going to be very careful about that, but they will let the houthis and iran know that it's unacceptable what's happening. attacks by iranian—supported houthi militias in the red sea area have been ongoing for weeks, but an ultimatum given last week by the us has been ignored, and now the coalition

is considering whether to strike missile launch sites in yemen. if this is to move into counter strikes on the houthis, then i think it has to be couched that way on a one out, one in basis with precision. now you have to be very quick. the houthis have learned a great deal from the iranians about mobility. so once they've fired, they will move those launchers. so targets are hard to strike. you have to be fast. but i think that's probably the next step. it is still self defence, but when they fire something out, something goes back. if you go beyond that and go into getting into their ports and putting special forces ashore, that's a different business then — now your hand is in the mangle — and that, i think, is what no one has any appetite for at the moment, which is why it hasn't happened yet. while the crisis in the red sea now threatens to draw western countries into yemen, that's part of a broader confrontation with pro—iranian militias, who've also attacked us forces in iraq and syria, triggering limited military response.

the really sensitive area is southern lebanon, where israel and hezbollah have been trading fire for months, but within carefully defined limits. as that and the campaign in gaza continue, there's little chance of iran reining in its proxies — threatening international shipping. their reasons to stop are perhaps limited, or they're persuaded to stop or told to stop by someone else, through diplomatic channels, or they're made to stop by counter strikes. so i think the solution to this is somewhere in the middle, as always. whether they will or not remains to be seen. but as long as they're not, then ships will have to keep going round the cape of good hope, and it's possible that that longer route will become the new normal for the foreseeable future. and at the heart of the current crisis, the war in gaza.

while israel has announced it's reducing the scale of operations there, it plans to continue for months, and the us secretary of state, who's wrapping up a tour of the region, has limited influence on that. america thus finds itself exposed and with few options. the us doesn't want to go any further, but they're trying to demonstrate strength and force in order to prevent a wider conflict from happening. so i think that is very similar in the uk. election years in the us and the uk and a number of other places, and governments will be very wary of getting embroiled in another middle east conflict. i think, as we've seen over the last decade and a half, they don't end the way that many people assume that they will end. action is likely imminent, then, but action calibrated to send a message rather than force a change. for shipowners and coalition navies, these will be times of increased risk and uncertain outcomes.

can you explain a little more for our audience about how this is a link to the israel — hamas conflict? in the narrow sense, the declared aims of the houthi movement were to support hamas in gaza and put pressure on israel. that is what they say they are about. the broader context is the houthis a part of the resistance which has been launching attacks in troops in syria and iraq. iran has an agenda about trying to drive us forces out of the region and has a and a gender if it doesn't mind if a country like egypt, who is relied on the red sea trade, gets badly hit by this. the suez canal authority saying today the revenues are down by 40% because the number of ships not using the canal now. those are the broad objectives of the houthi movement, in concert with

the houthi movement, in concert with the iranians. the houthi movement, in concert with the iranians-— the iranians. what of this us - uk military action _ the iranians. what of this us - uk military action against _ the iranians. what of this us - uk military action against the - the iranians. what of this us - uk military action against the rebels, j military action against the rebels, what if it doesn't work? that military action against the rebels, what if it doesn't work?— what if it doesn't work? that is a tricky question — what if it doesn't work? that is a | tricky question because inevitably the houthis have said we will come back at you even harder, expecting these strikes. as we were hearing from some of the experts there, this question aboutjust how high are you prepared to raise the pay level? frankly, from a uk perspective, i'll be able to contribute much more than a few air strikes, possibly a few missile strikes? what are we actually able to do? i don't think there is any appetite in the us or uk of troops on the ground, even special forces, uk of troops on the ground, even specialforces, very uk of troops on the ground, even special forces, very limited appetite for that. everyone has seen what has happened in yemen for the past eight years, a bitter and difficult conflict. so that is the question. how persistent we are western powers be with this, during the months it might take before there is some kind of resolution or settling down of the situation in

gaza and this threat might then be lifted? let's speak to sir william patey, former british ambassador to afghanistan, sudan, iraq and saudi arabia. welcome. first of all, what do you understand this military response might look like? i understand this military response might look like?— might look like? i think it will be limited. ithink— might look like? i think it will be limited. | think it _ might look like? i think it will be limited. i think it will— might look like? i think it will be limited. i think it will be - might look like? i think it will be limited. i think it will be aimed l might look like? i think it will be | limited. i think it will be aimed at many— limited. i think it will be aimed at many military targets linked to the launching — many military targets linked to the launching of missiles and drowns. there _ launching of missiles and drowns. there has— launching of missiles and drowns. there has been a gathering of intelligence, cobra met this morning and america will use their intelligence capability to locate where — intelligence capability to locate where the missiles are being launched from, where they might be stored _ launched from, where they might be stored i_ launched from, where they might be stored. i imagine that is where the targets— stored. i imagine that is where the targets are — stored. i imagine that is where the targets are. i don't think we have much _ targets are. i don't think we have much choice, a warner was —— mega warning _ much choice, a warner was —— mega warning was— much choice, a warner was —— mega warning was given to the houthis, if they continued to attack shipping, there _ they continued to attack shipping, there would be a response. i think there would be a response. i think the response will be quite limited. houthis— the response will be quite limited. houthis said if we attack us, we

will come — houthis said if we attack us, we will come back to you. there are not mitch _ will come back to you. there are not mitch british — will come back to you. there are not mitch british or american targets in yemen _ mitch british or american targets in yemen i_ mitch british or american targets in yemen. i think what we would see is a tax _ yemen. i think what we would see is a tax on _ yemen. i think what we would see is a tax on a _ yemen. i think what we would see is a tax on a wider range of shipping but they— a tax on a wider range of shipping but they have been pretty liberal in their interpretation of what is israeii — their interpretation of what is israeii or— their interpretation of what is israeli or going to israel. i don't think— israeli or going to israel. i don't think it — israeli or going to israel. i don't think it will _ israeli or going to israel. i don't think it will be much different. so i think it will be much different. so iwouid _ think it will be much different. so i would expect it would be a limited strike _ i would expect it would be a limited strike to_ i would expect it would be a limited strike. ., , ., i would expect it would be a limited strike. ., ,, i would expect it would be a limited strike. ., i. ,, i would expect it would be a limited strike. ., ,, ,, ., strike. to your point, mark, what if it doesn't work _ strike. to your point, mark, what if it doesn't work out _ strike. to your point, mark, what if it doesn't work out how _ strike. to your point, mark, what if it doesn't work out how committed | strike. to your point, mark, what if. it doesn't work out how committed to the us and uk need to be? you it doesn't work out how committed to the us and uk need to be?— the us and uk need to be? you could kee doinu the us and uk need to be? you could keep doing it — the us and uk need to be? you could keep doing it for— the us and uk need to be? you could keep doing it for a _ the us and uk need to be? you could keep doing it for a while _ the us and uk need to be? you could keep doing it for a while if— the us and uk need to be? you could keep doing it for a while if they - keep doing it for a while if they continue to fire missiles, they could — continue to fire missiles, they could keep doing it. i think there

is a bit of— could keep doing it. i think there is a bit of diplomacy to be done here is— is a bit of diplomacy to be done here is that ironically, the saudis are in— here is that ironically, the saudis are in the middle of a ceasefire with— are in the middle of a ceasefire with the houthis, having been involved in a civil war in yemen, they— involved in a civil war in yemen, they are engaged in a ceasefire. they— they are engaged in a ceasefire. they have also got... trying to have some progress with iran. the egyptians and saudis might have some influence on iran but it depends how far they want to take this. | far they want to take this. i think that is the _ far they want to take this. i think that is the key point, _ far they want to take this. i think that is the key point, is - far they want to take this. i think that is the key point, is iran - that is the key point, is iran really does have the power to speak to the houthis and to say to them when they think the time is right to stop it. as for the influence of other countries, it's fascinatingly paradoxical that saudi arabia might have having fought that... but the houthis say they are continuing in dialogue with saudi arabia. so those are the possible diplomatic roots. what is in it for iran, for the houthis to be launching these attacks on commercial ships in the red sea? , ., , ., ., red sea? they have been a malign influence in _ red sea? they have been a malign influence in the _ red sea? they have been a malign influence in the middle _ red sea? they have been a malign influence in the middle east - red sea? they have been a malign influence in the middle east for i influence in the middle east for some _ influence in the middle east for some time. it creates the arc through— some time. it creates the arc through to syria and lebanon. they have nurtured and helped create hezbollah, they have militias in iraq hezbollah, they have militias in iraq and — hezbollah, they have militias in iraq and elsewhere. the houthis was

an opportunity presented to them. the conflict with saudi arabia, they happen— the conflict with saudi arabia, they happen to — the conflict with saudi arabia, they happen to be cher. so there was an opportunity— happen to be cher. so there was an opportunity there, so they took that opportunity. their influence is to take advantage of the arab anger at what is _ take advantage of the arab anger at what is going on in gaza. there is a lot of— what is going on in gaza. there is a lot of anger— what is going on in gaza. there is a lot of anger around the middle east. so essentially to create their own sphere of— so essentially to create their own sphere of influence in the middle east, to— sphere of influence in the middle east, to diminish the american sphere — east, to diminish the american sphere. they were frightened of israel, saudi arabia, the united states— israel, saudi arabia, the united states moving closer together with saudi arabia part of the abraham accords, which was seen as a kind of containment of iran, the strategic aint _ containment of iran, the strategic aim. they are interested in upsetting that, for sure. so therefore. _ upsetting that, for sure. sr therefore, will the anger that you described in those arab nations, will they see this as the us and the ukjoining the war with

uk joining the war with israel against gaza? ukjoining the war with israel against gaza?— ukjoining the war with israel against gaza? ukjoining the war with israel auainst gaza? , ., .. , , ., against gaza? they will accuse us of h ocris , against gaza? they will accuse us of hypocrisy, that... _ against gaza? they will accuse us of hypocrisy, that... they _ against gaza? they will accuse us of hypocrisy, that... they worry - against gaza? they will accuse us of hypocrisy, that... they worry that i hypocrisy, that... they worry that we are _ hypocrisy, that... they worry that we are not— hypocrisy, that... they worry that we are not putting enough pressure on israei— we are not putting enough pressure on israet to— we are not putting enough pressure on israel to try and de—escalate in gaza _ on israel to try and de—escalate in gaza at— on israel to try and de—escalate in gaza at the — on israel to try and de—escalate in gaza. at the first sign of any attacks— gaza. at the first sign of any attacks on our own shipping, we are prepared _ attacks on our own shipping, we are prepared to — attacks on our own shipping, we are prepared to use military action. you hear that— prepared to use military action. you hear that now. but they are separate _ hear that now. but they are separate. the houthis are making a direct— separate. the houthis are making a direct attack on the interests of the united states and the uk and other— the united states and the uk and other countries by interfering in international shipping lanes. it is a direct— international shipping lanes. it is a direct attack on our interest and we have _ a direct attack on our interest and we have a — a direct attack on our interest and we have a right to self defence to defend _ we have a right to self defence to defend ourselves. what influence the uk or— defend ourselves. what influence the uk or uk_ defend ourselves. what influence the uk or uk can bring on israel is separate — uk or uk can bring on israel is separate and is not... the arab israei— separate and is not... the arab israet issue _ separate and is not... the arab israel issue is not directly affecting our interest, although it does _ affecting our interest, although it does affect them indirectly. gk, does affect them indirectly. 0k, thank you. _ does affect them indirectly. 0k, thank you, thank— does affect them indirectly. ok thank you, thank you very much. let's speak now to eylon levy, an israeli government spokesman. we have lots to talk to you about —

obviously the latest developments in gaza. the hearings today at the international court ofjustice, south africa accusing israel of genocide. but let's start with this houthi campaign. it has happened as a result of the israel—hamas conflict. i wonder if that underlines the fact that perhaps this conflict needs to be brought to a close? if this conflict needs to be brought to a close? , ., ., this conflict needs to be brought to a close? ,, ., ., this conflict needs to be brought to a close? i. ., ., ,, ., ., a close? if you want to know what the houthi — a close? if you want to know what the houthi regime _ a close? if you want to know what the houthi regime is _ a close? if you want to know what the houthi regime is about - a close? if you want to know what the houthi regime is about it - a close? if you want to know what the houthi regime is about it is i the houthi regime is about it is about the slogan, death to america, death to israel, cursed be thejews, victory to islam. the houthi terra pirates have all the self—awareness of cartoon villains that they are no laughing matter, they are a dangerous business.- laughing matter, they are a dangerous business. they are a dangerous _ dangerous business. they are a dangerous business _ dangerous business. they are a dangerous business but - dangerous business. they are a dangerous business but you - dangerous business. they are a l dangerous business but you don't want to see this escalates across the wider region? edi want to see this escalates across the wider region?— want to see this escalates across the wider region? of course not, we ho -e this the wider region? of course not, we hope this conflict _ the wider region? of course not, we hope this conflict can be _ the wider region? of course not, we hope this conflict can be contained l hope this conflict can be contained and the massacre hamas perpetrated on the 7th of october, that can see

the return of the hostages and an end to this. but the escalation tonight reminds us of the importance of the uk — israel alliance because we find ourselves fighting different proxies. in gaza we are fighting against the hamas rapists regime which was responsible for the brutal massacre and now the uk and us are fighting the houthi pirate regime and that reminds us that in the grand scheme of things in the big fight for international peace and security, the uk and israel are on the same side. it security, the uk and israel are on the same side.— security, the uk and israel are on the same side. it is 'ust over three months nowh the same side. it is 'ust over three months now since — the same side. it isjust over three months now since hamas - the same side. it isjust over three months now since hamas went - the same side. it isjust over three | months now since hamas went into southern israel and killed and raped and took many people hostage. how would you describe the collective trauma ofjewish people, notjust in israel but around the world, three months on?— israel but around the world, three months on? israeli society and the jewish months on? israeli society and the jewish people _ months on? israeli society and the jewish people around _ months on? israeli society and the jewish people around the - months on? israeli society and the jewish people around the world - months on? israeli society and the | jewish people around the world are jewish people around the world are deeply traumatised, notjust jewish people around the world are deeply traumatised, not just by the atrocities of the 7th of october but after they happened, they set off a

wave ofjubilation in celebration around the world. the protests against israel began on the 8th of october, before israel started its offensive against hamas and immediately after the massacre. we have been saddened, shocked and appalled to see people at fir celebrating hamas' at�* atrocities and then covering them up and then denying them and then trying to cast on israel and the campaign around the world to try and tear down the posters of the vulnerable hostages, little children abducted and held in the hamas dungeons has triggered some very painful memories and reminded us of the depth of the problem of dehumanisation ofjews that remains at large parts of the western world. in that remains at large parts of the western world.— western world. in terms of the hosta . es western world. in terms of the hostages that _ western world. in terms of the hostages that are _ western world. in terms of the hostages that are still - western world. in terms of the hostages that are still in - western world. in terms of the hostages that are still in gaza, | hostages that are still in gaza, and you still trying to get them out, at the moment it would appear negotiations have broken down. is it true that israel have linked that to allowing people in the south of gaza to return to the north? the allowing people in the south of gaza to return to the north?— to return to the north? the hostage issue with 136 _ to return to the north? the hostage issue with 136 hostages _ to return to the north? the hostage

issue with 136 hostages still- issue with 136 hostages still trapped in the dungeons is painful for israeli society. that is why many walk around with this dog tag saying our hearts are captive in gaza and bring them home now. 136 people. it is already too late for 25 of them who have been killed in captivity and we are committed to the pledge to bring them all back, knowing... the pledge to bring them all back, knowina... ~ knowing... linked it with palestinians _ knowing... linked it with palestinians returning i knowing... linked it with palestinians returning to | knowing... linked it with - palestinians returning to the north of gaza? i palestinians returning to the north of gaza? .., �* palestinians returning to the north of gaza? �* _, ., palestinians returning to the north ofgaza? �* ., ,,. . of gaza? i can't comment on specific details of the — of gaza? i can't comment on specific details of the negotiations, - details of the negotiations, they are sensitive negotiations where human lives lie in the balance but we are trying to get those vulnerable hostages home, knowing what physical, psychological and sexual abuse they are suffering. in sexual abuse they are suffering. in terms of eliminating hamas, which is the stated aim of israel, you have killed a deputy leader in lebanon. you say you have killed 8000 hamas fighters in gaza and we know many thousands of palestinian civilians have been killed or maimed. tragically. have been killed or maimed. tragically-— have been killed or maimed. traaicall. ,, ,, . ., , ., tragically. the us secretary of state antony _ tragically. the us secretary of state antony blinken - tragically. the us secretary of state antony blinken said - tragically. the us secretary of - state antony blinken said yesterday the daily toll of civilians in gaza, particularly on children, is far too

high. have too many people being killed? , ., ., , , killed? yes, far too many people have been _ killed? yes, far too many people have been killed, _ killed? yes, far too many people have been killed, far— killed? yes, far too many people have been killed, far too - killed? yes, far too many people have been killed, far too many . have been killed, far too many people have been killed since the moment hamas invaded us on the 7th of october and perpetrated that act of genocide, they burn families alive, abducted our grandmothers, it's a very sad fact that everyone who has been killed or hurt since then would still be alive if hamas had not invaded us, launch this war and chosen to fight this war from inside densely populated areas where it has deliberately and in flagrant violation of international law hidden its assets under ground, and civilian areas. it remains true this war could end tomorrow and the suffering could end right now with hamas surrenders. that is the position of the uk government when we see lord cameron with the german foreign minister writing hamas must lay down its arms. there is no room for hamas in a post—war gaza. antony blinken said the same thing, the walking end tomorrow if hamas surrenders and we are calling on hamas fighters, to surrender peacefully or to die in battle. we

hope they will make the right choice. . . hope they will make the right choice. , ., _, hope they will make the right choice. , ., ., ., ., choice. this war could end tomorrow if ou choice. this war could end tomorrow if you stopped _ choice. this war could end tomorrow if you stopped bombing _ choice. this war could end tomorrow if you stopped bombing them. - choice. this war could end tomorrow if you stopped bombing them. we i choice. this war could end tomorrow. if you stopped bombing them. we are not auoin to if you stopped bombing them. we are not going to abandon 136 _ if you stopped bombing them. we are not going to abandon 136 hostages i if you stopped bombing them. we are not going to abandon 136 hostages in | not going to abandon 136 hostages in the hands of the hamas rapist regime and anyone who thinks we are going to do so is sorely mistaken and their moral compass irreparably broken. l their moral compass irreparably broken. . . their moral compass irreparably broken. , ., ., their moral compass irreparably broken. ., , broken. i understand that but you are the stronger _ broken. i understand that but you are the stronger nation. - broken. i understand that but you are the stronger nation. you - broken. i understand that but you are the stronger nation. you are i broken. i understand that but you i are the stronger nation. you are the bigger nation. it is in your hands to stop this, to break this cycle. we very much want to end the cycle and this war. we aren't to end this war in a way that make sure hamas can attack us again put up the first thing hamas did after brutally slaughtering 1200 people on the seventh october and taking 250 people hostage was to tell us it wants to do it again and again. they went on tv and they said it was not enough, we will teach them a lesson i do this again and again until israel is destroyed. so we want to end this war in a way that makes sure that they cannot attack us again like they did on the 7th of october and they cannot attack us again like they did with 20 years of sustained rocket fire from the gaza

strip. sustained rocket fire from the gaza stri -. ., ,, ., sustained rocket fire from the gaza stri. ., ,, ., ., strip. you will know that some exerts strip. you will know that some experts think— strip. you will know that some experts think is _ strip. you will know that some experts think is unrealistic. . experts think is unrealistic. let me... experts think is unrealistic. let me- -- we _ experts think is unrealistic. let me... we have _ experts think is unrealistic. let me... we have a different assessment. me. .. we have a different assessment.— me... we have a different assessment. ., ., ., ., assessment. the international court of justice assessment. the international court ofjustice held _ assessment. the international court ofjustice held the _ assessment. the international court ofjustice held the first _ assessment. the international court ofjustice held the first hearing - ofjustice held the first hearing brought by south africa in which israel is accused of genocide against civilians in gaza. i will play you a small clip from one of the lawyers today can have a watch of this. each day yet more desperate people will be forced to relocate from where they are sheltering, or will be bombed in places where they have been told to evacuate to. entire multi—generational families will be obliterated, and yet more palestinian children will become wcnsf. wounded child, no surviving family. the terrible new acronym born out of israel's genocidal assault on the palestinian population in gaza. all of that is true, isn't it? it is trauic

all of that is true, isn't it? it is tragic and _ all of that is true, isn't it? it is tragic and appalling _ all of that is true, isn't it? it 3 tragic and appalling south africa has decided to play advocate for the devil. l has decided to play advocate for the devil. ,., . has decided to play advocate for the devil. ,., , , ., devil. i will pause you there if i ma be devil. i will pause you there if i may be because _ devil. i will pause you there if i may be because almost - devil. i will pause you there if i may be because almost every. devil. i will pause you there if i - may be because almost every point i put to you what every question i ask you, you respond with an answer that is not relevant to the question. let me answer— is not relevant to the question. let me answer directly, the lawyer they are serving as the legal representative of hamas accusing israel of genocide is presenting a topsy—turvy reality in which hamas doesn't exist, hasn't taken hostages, israel decided one bright morning to start bombing gaza. on october the 7th where he suffered an act of genocide when hamas invaded our country and raped, abducted and killed as many people as it could. in response, we have launched a campaign with clear objectives, to destroy the hamas regime so it cannot help —— magga her people again and bring back the hostages still held in the dungeons. we will be pursuing them in full accordance of international law. that be pursuing them in full accordance of international law.— of international law. that is disputed- — of international law. that is disputed- i— of international law. that is disputed. i want _ of international law. that is

disputed. i want to - of international law. that is disputed. i want to ask - of international law. that is disputed. i want to ask you | of international law. that is - disputed. i want to ask you about the comments made by israeli politician since the 7th of october. hopefully we can bring up the quote. this is your president. he is referring to gazans. have a look at this, the next one. nakba, as people know, is the word of catastrophe used by palestinians for ethnic cleansing. can you see why some people believe that you absolutely don't want palestinians any longer in gaza? taste palestinians any longer in gaza? we think palestinians any longer in gaza? - think we have been very clear, both in word and in deed. in those words macular he does not make decisions on security matters in israel. we have been clear that gaza are not our not our enemy. our enemy is the hamas regime and that is why we have gone further than any army in the history of the world to try and get

civilians out of harms way. we just had the former... the civilians out of harms way. we 'ust had the former. . .i civilians out of harms way. we 'ust had the former... the words of those politicians. — had the former... the words of those politicians. we _ had the former... the words of those politicians, we are _ had the former... the words of those politicians, we are rolling _ had the former... the words of those politicians, we are rolling out the - politicians, we are rolling out the gaza nakba, the palestinian term for ethnic cleansing. those are the words of a government minister in your government. talk words of a government minister in your government.— words of a government minister in your government. talk about some historical context... _ your government. talk about some historical context... i'm _ your government. talk about some historical context... i'm asking - your government. talk about some historical context... i'm asking youj historical context... i'm asking you about those _ historical context... i'm asking you about those words. _ historical context... i'm asking you about those words. i _ historical context... i'm asking you about those words. i want - historical context... i'm asking you about those words. i want to - historical context... i'm asking you about those words. i want to talk l about those words. i want to talk about those words. i want to talk about that _ about those words. i want to talk about that word, _ about those words. i want to talk about that word, when _ about those words. i want to talk about that word, when the - about that word, when the palestinians use the word nakba they are referring to the consequences of the decision in 1948 to try and scuttle the creation of a jewish state and declared war in 1948. that war of annihilation did not go their way and there were consequences as a result. ., , ., ., ., ., result. how is that relevant to what our result. how is that relevant to what your government — result. how is that relevant to what your government minister - result. how is that relevant to what your government minister has - result. how is that relevant to what your government minister has said | your government minister has said now, because what he is saying is we want to get rid of these people. we do not want to get rid of these people. - do not want to get rid of these people. we have been very clear in word and deed as a government and as the prime minister and defence minister had said, that we urge civilians to get to safety on the safe zone four is that we have been urging them to go to the safe zone. there are no safe zones.—

urging them to go to the safe zone. there are no safe zones. hamas has decided to shoot _ there are no safe zones. hamas has decided to shoot rockets _ there are no safe zones. hamas has decided to shoot rockets and - there are no safe zones. hamas has decided to shoot rockets and the - decided to shoot rockets and the united nations has said absolutely nothing... united nations has said absolutely nothin: . .. ., united nations has said absolutely nothina... ., ., ,, nothing... you were also killed --eole nothing. .. you were also killed people near— nothing... you were also killed people near the _ nothing... you were also killed people near the rafa _ nothing... you were also killed people near the rafa crossing. | nothing... you were also killed i people near the rafa crossing. it nothing... you were also killed - people near the rafa crossing. it is trauic people near the rafa crossing. it is tragic hamas _ people near the rafa crossing. it 3 tragic hamas continues to double down on its human shield strategy. i don't know if your viewers understand the extent to which in the last 16 years hamas redesigned gaza's cityscape to hide its military assets underneath civilian areas. we have made extensive warnings for civilians to leave. 17,000 individual phone calls, 7 million leaflets, 14 million phone calls, 14 million text messages, more than any army in history, i'm happy to be fact checked, more warnings than all the history to urge civilians to get out of harms way. they are not our enemy... there is no such _ way. they are not our enemy... there is no such thing _ way. they are not our enemy. .. there is no such thing of— way. they are not our enemy... there is no such thing of out _ way. they are not our enemy. .. there is no such thing of out of— way. they are not our enemy... there is no such thing of out of harms - way. they are not our enemy... there is no such thing of out of harms way l is no such thing of out of harms way in gaza. i will pause you there because we are out of time for us that we would like the un to cooperate with us instead of condemning israel for designating safe zones, which is what they had spuriously been doing thus that you

know there is no such thing as a safe area in gaza. we will leave it there. . safe area in gaza. we will leave it there. , ._ ., there. there will be the day after hamas. thank _ there. there will be the day after hamas. thank you _ there. there will be the day after hamas. thank you for _ there. there will be the day after hamas. thank you for being - there. there will be the day after hamas. thank you for being with | there. there will be the day after- hamas. thank you for being with us. thank you. — hamas. thank you for being with us. thank you, victoria. _ one of the most bewildering things about the post office scandal — and there are many — was why, when so many sub—postmasters were telling fraud investigators employed by the post office that they hadn't stolen any money and it was actually down to bugs in the horizon computer system, those investigators didn't go to senior executives at the post office or fujistsu, who delivered the software, and ask could there in fact be faults with it? we had an insight today from testimony at the public inquiry into the scandal. a man still employed by the post office to investigate suspected fraud by branch manages admitted he had no technical knowledge, and he claimed he didn't have information about faults and irregularaties about the horizon software system from the bosses, although he had been sent articles in various publications about the problems. a statement he signed in 2012, declaring the post office's "absolute confidence" in the software was written by lawyers, not him. his name was stephen bradshaw

and he investigated shazia saddiq, who was with us on newsnight last night on our special programme, and she's back with us. shazia ran three post office in the newscastle area — she was suspended in 2016 after shortfalls, fraud accusations and a cyber hack meant the post office said she owed them in total £75,000. welcome back. thank you for having me. you welcome back. thank you for having me- you were _ welcome back. thank you for having me. you were there, _ welcome back. thank you for having me. you were there, listening - welcome back. thank you for having me. you were there, listening to - welcome back. thank you for having | me. you were there, listening to the evidence of— me. you were there, listening to the evidence of a — me. you were there, listening to the evidence of a man _ me. you were there, listening to the evidence of a man who _ me. you were there, listening to the evidence of a man who investigated l evidence of a man who investigated you, what did you take from what he said? i you, what did you take from what he said? ., ., , said? i found him to be quite arrogant. _ said? i found him to be quite arrogant, because _ said? i found him to be quite arrogant, because i'd - said? i found him to be quite arrogant, because i'd never. said? i found him to be quite . arrogant, because i'd never ever said? i found him to be quite - arrogant, because i'd never ever met him in person, always threatening phone call, email, such like, victoria, so yeah, ifound him quite arrogant, and yeah, just not a very nice person. i arrogant, and yeah, 'ust not a very person.— arrogant, and yeah, 'ust not a very nice person. i want to play you this cli from nice person. i want to play you this clip from mr— nice person. i want to play you this clip from mr bradshaw _ nice person. i want to play you this clip from mr bradshaw who - nice person. i want to play you this clip from mr bradshaw who was - nice person. i want to play you this i clip from mr bradshaw who was being questioned by one of the lawyers and what you will see first is a shot of

your witness statement, let your witness statement, let us have a look. "on the 29th of november 2016, at 1344, steven bradshaw called me "and i refused to speak to him because i didn't know who he was, "or who he worked for. "in that telephone call, which was witnessed by my husband "on loud speaker he called me a bitch, which i found "extremely distressing." that is how you behaved towards my client. completely untrue. i do not call anybody that type of name. i and she did know who i was, i because she received an email from me on 10th november. did he call you a pitch. he did. how did that make _ did he call you a pitch. he did. how did that make you _ did he call you a pitch. he did. how did that make you feel? _ did he call you a pitch. he did. how did that make you feel? shocked. l did he call you a pitch. he did. how. did that make you feel? shocked. he is den in: did that make you feel? shocked. he is denying it — did that make you feel? shocked. he is denying it today. _ did that make you feel? shocked. he is denying it today. it _ did that make you feel? shocked. he is denying it today. it doesn't - is denying it today. it doesn't surrise is denying it today. it doesn't surprise me _ is denying it today. it doesn't surprise me e _ is denying it today. it doesn't surprise me e this _ is denying it today. it doesn't surprise me e this is - is denying it today. it doesn't surprise me e this is classic l is denying it today. it doesn't - surprise me e this is classic what we were used to, the old management, deny everything, they never did anything wrong. haifa deny everything, they never did anything wrong-— deny everything, they never did anything wrong. deny everything, they never did an hinuawron. ., ., , anything wrong. how does it make you feel, to anything wrong. how does it make you feel. to know — anything wrong. how does it make you feel, to know that _ anything wrong. how does it make you feel, to know that people _ anything wrong. how does it make you feel, to know that people are - anything wrong. how does it make you feel, to know that people are really . feel, to know that people are really paying attention to what is going on today? or listening to you? to be listened to. _ today? or listening to you? to be listened to, that _ today? or listening to you? to be

listened to, that is _ today? or listening to you? to be listened to, that is all _ today? or listening to you? to be listened to, that is all i've - today? or listening to you? to be listened to, that is all i've sort . listened to, that is all i've sort of ever wanted, and today i was listened to. i never thought in my wildest dreams victoria, that anybody would read my statement out of the 555, but it was important to me, to put that in there. i of the 555, but it was important to me, to put that in there.— me, to put that in there. i have read your _ me, to put that in there. i have read your whole _ me, to put that in there. i have read your whole witness - me, to put that in there. i have - read your whole witness statement today and i will come back to that in a moment if i may, we will hear mohrfrom you in a in a moment if i may, we will hear mohr from you in a second. in a moment if i may, we will hear mohrfrom you in a second. but first, here is seema on the culture and legal strategy of the post office, through the years of wrongful prosecutions against subpostmasters like shazia. on the post office website it says everyone working there has a responsibility to promote a professionaal and positive work environment, and to inform managers of any instances of apparent discrimination, or any perceived problem in relation to employment, or to the provision of products and services. but today at the inquiry, investigators working on behalf of the post office were described

as behaving like mafia gangsters during the time of the wrongful prosecutions, something steven bradshaw denied being the case. but in recent days we have spoken to several sub—postmaster who have spoken about a bullying culture, where secrets were being kept. in one keyjudgement of the 2019 high court case against the post office it was stated... further more, last may, the mp alistair carmichael said at a westminster hall debate on the scandal... the post office told us in 2021 it changed its governance structure, appointing two serving postmasters to the board to rebuild trust

and modernise the business. steven bradshaw said a statement he signed in 2012, declaring the post office's absolute confidence in the horizon it software, was written by lawyers and not him, raising questions about the legal strategy at the time. the 2019 judgement says the post office refused to consider possible alternatives to their views on horizon, regardless of the weight of the factual evidence to the contrary. thejudge said...

seema misra was falsely accused of stealing £75,000, and ended up spending months in prison. she says the post office deliberately with held evidence and wanted to make an example of her. because i criticised horizon, i went against horizon and said horizon is not robust, they want to set me as a test case. so to scare everybody else, if they do the same, this is going to happen but they chose the wrong person. do you feel they were making an example of you? of course, yes, they did. do you feel they were making an example of you? of course, yes, they did. some lawyers have argued that the courts were easily accepting what the faulty it system claimed to show. there are now calles for an end to the legal presumption that computer systems data are always correct, with no burden on the prosecution to prove it. the current position in law is everything generated by a computer is reliable, can be admissable unless you can prove otherwise. we want to just, the lawyers and the other academics want to change that presumption, so that the prosecution needs

to prove that a computer system is operating reliably. the post office says while progress has been made, with £138 million paid in compensation, it continues to work with the government to support its efforts to speed up the exoneration of people with wrongful convictions. each and every individual who was a part of the post office scandal, they need to go behind the bars, and their properties need to be confiscated like they confiscated my property, and the money should go to the victims. shazia's still here, and also with us is professor richard moorhead, who sits on the independent horizon compensation advisory board and is an expert in legal regulations and ethics. welcome to newsnight. what was it about the culture, in the post office? it about the culture, in the post office? . . about the culture, in the post office? ., , ., ., , office? it was, it had a siege mentality. — office? it was, it had a siege mentality. it _ office? it was, it had a siege mentality, it was _ office? it was, it had a siege| mentality, it was aggressive, office? it was, it had a siege i mentality, it was aggressive, i didn't pay any attention to

evidence, i thought, didn't pay any attention to evidence, ithought, it didn't pay any attention to evidence, i thought, it decided the fact and it wrote the rules and opposed the sub—postmasters. breathe? opposed the sub-postmasters. why? mone . opposed the sub-postmasters. why? money- they — opposed the sub-postmasters. why? money. they kneed _ opposed the sub-postmasters. why? money. they kneed to _ opposed the sub—postmasters. why? money. they kneed to keep horizon going, they needed to protect the reputation of the post office. they thought they were a national institution, they thought they were protecting public money, they thought they were doing the moral thing but they were looking after their reputation and their own careers. ~ ., , ., , ., ., their reputation and their own careers. ., , ., , ., ., ., careers. who is to blame for that eventualer _ careers. who is to blame for that eventualer then? _ careers. who is to blame for that eventualer then? for _ careers. who is to blame for that eventualer then? for the - careers. who is to blame for that eventualer then? for the culture | careers. who is to blame for that i eventualer then? for the culture is leadershi- eventualer then? for the culture is leadership of _ eventualer then? for the culture is leadership of the _ eventualer then? for the culture is leadership of the board, _ eventualer then? for the culture is leadership of the board, the - eventualer then? for the culture is leadership of the board, the ceo i eventualer then? for the culture is| leadership of the board, the ceo or chairwoman at the time, and there are lots of people in those roles an the lawyer, the lawyers helped the board prosecute sub—postmaster, threatening to sub—postmasters... threatening to sub—postmasters. .. weren't threatening to sub—postmasters... weren't the lawyers doing what lawyers do?— weren't the lawyers doing what la ersdo? ., lawyers do? well, there is a bit of that, lawyers do? well, there is a bit of that. they — lawyers do? well, there is a bit of that, they were _ lawyers do? well, there is a bit of that, they were doing _ lawyers do? well, there is a bit of that, they were doing what - lawyers do? well, there is a bit of. that, they were doing what lawyers do but whey were doing it a bit too much, they were concealing the truth sometimes, they were misleading... how do you know?—

how do you know? there is lots of evidence they _ how do you know? there is lots of evidence they didn't _ how do you know? there is lots of evidence they didn't disclose - how do you know? there is lots of. evidence they didn't disclose things to the courts they should have done, civil cases and sometimes criminal cases and they helped the boards of the company, it looks for these are alinvestigations now but it look like they help the board mislead parliament and the courts, so there is a really serious set of allegation.— is a really serious set of alletation. , . , . �* allegation. they really are. am i naive to be _ allegation. they really are. am i naive to be shocked _ allegation. they really are. am i naive to be shocked by - allegation. they really are. am i naive to be shocked by that? - allegation. they really are. am i | naive to be shocked by that? are allegation. they really are. am i - naive to be shocked by that? are you saying there is evidence they misled the courts and parliament? yes. the courts and parliament? yes, absolutely. _ the courts and parliament? yes, absolutely, they _ the courts and parliament? yes, absolutely, they helped - the courts and parliament? fie: absolutely, they helped mislead. helped. absolutely, they helped mislead. heled. �* absolutely, they helped mislead. heled. . , .,,.,_ ., absolutely, they helped mislead. heled. �* , , ., . , helped. and probably more directly misled. there _ helped. and probably more directly misled. there is _ helped. and probably more directly misled. there is certainly _ misled. there is certainly allegations before the inquiry to that effect i would say. ok. so they paula vegs went to parliament and said there is no evidence of miscarriages ofjustice, 2015. there absolutely was, that, some of that evidence had been reported to the board, lawyers had helped say to the board, lawyers had helped say to the board, we think your prosecution process is fundamentally sound, that kind of process, paula vegs said the

lawyers said it is ok, i can tell the select committee it is ok and it really wasn't. is the select committee it is ok and it really wasn't-— really wasn't. is that mislead ort anise really wasn't. is that mislead organise lying? _ really wasn't. is that mislead organise lying? that - really wasn't. is that mislead organise lying? that is - really wasn't. is that mislead organise lying? that is a - really wasn't. is that mislead | organise lying? that is a good question. _ organise lying? that is a good question, from _ organise lying? that is a good question, from lawyers - organise lying? that is a good - question, from lawyers perspective it doesn't matter, both things are wrong. so misleading somebody is wrong, you cannot under professional rules mislead anyone and you can't mislead courts. 50 rules mislead anyone and you can't mislead courts.— rules mislead anyone and you can't mislead courts. so if they did, what are the ramify _ mislead courts. so if they did, what are the ramify cases? _ mislead courts. so if they did, what are the ramify cases? what - mislead courts. so if they did, what are the ramify cases? what could i are the ramify cases? what could happen? 50 are the ramify cases? what could ha . en? are the ramify cases? what could hauen? ., , , , happen? so the lawyers could be strohic. happen? so the lawyers could be strophic- they — happen? so the lawyers could be strophic. they could _ happen? so the lawyers could be strophic. they could be - happen? so the lawyers could be i strophic. they could be suspended, they could be prosecuted for perverting the course ofjustice, i think all of those options are in players i certainly think lawyer also be investigated, and disciplined, and i would say it is reasonably likely that some of them will be prosecuted through the criminal courts.— will be prosecuted through the criminal courts.- yeah. i will be prosecuted through the criminal courts.- yeah. criminal courts. wow. yeah. what do ou think criminal courts. wow. yeah. what do you think of — criminal courts. wow. yeah. what do you think of that. _ criminal courts. wow. yeah. what do you think of that. it _ criminal courts. wow. yeah. what do you think of that. it is _ criminal courts. wow. yeah. what do you think of that. it is absolutely - you think of that. it is absolutely shockin: , you think of that. it is absolutely shocking, because _ you think of that. it is absolutely shocking, because i— you think of that. it is absolutely shocking, because i respect- you think of that. it is absolutely shocking, because i respect the l shocking, because i respect the british— shocking, because i respect the british government, i'm a law—abiding citizen, i'm absolutely shocked _ law—abiding citizen, i'm absolutely shocked. yeah. fist law-abiding citizen, i'm absolutely shocked. yeah.—

law-abiding citizen, i'm absolutely shocked. yeah. at this point, no-one hith u- shocked. yeah. at this point, no-one high up has — shocked. yeah. at this point, no-one high up has been _ shocked. yeah. at this point, no-one high up has been held _ shocked. yeah. at this point, no-one high up has been held accountable. i high up has been held accountable. is that coming? at the end of the public inquiry potentially. thihk public inquiry potentially. think so. the public inquiry potentially. think so- the inquiry _ public inquiry potentially. think so. the inquiry seem _ public inquiry potentially. think so. the inquiry seem to - public inquiry potentially. think so. the inquiry seem to be - public inquiry potentially. try “it. so. the inquiry seem to be doing a terrificjob, they have an excellent team, the chairman is fantastic, he he has the trust of the sub—postmaster, they are looking at every issue they should be looking at i would say and they are putting extremely difficult questions to lawyers, and investigators and senior executives will come to see that in the coming months and those people are struggling to answer the questions as you saw today in your earlier report. questions as you saw today in your earlier report-— earlier report. yeah. when i read our earlier report. yeah. when i read your witness— earlier report. yeah. when i read your witness statement - earlier report. yeah. when i read your witness statement shazia, i earlier report. yeah. when i read i your witness statement shazia, you were on the programme last night, but it wasn't until i went onto detail of it today, you also had a mental break down.— mental break down. yes, that is correct. yeah. _ mental break down. yes, that is correct. yeah. fleeing _ mental break down. yes, that is correct. yeah. fleeing thought i mental break down. yes, that is| correct. yeah. fleeing thought of suicide _ correct. yeah. fleeing thought of suicide as— correct. yeah. fleeing thought of suicide as well because i did not see any— suicide as well because i did not see any way out. it was a fleeting thought. — see any way out. it was a fleeting thought, but yes, i had a total break— thought, but yes, i had a total break down, because it was something outside _ break down, because it was something outside of— break down, because it was something outside of my control. and i was

being _ outside of my control. and i was being accused of something