hello, welcome to bbc news now, three hours of fast—moving news, interviews and reaction. spain, ireland and norway have announced they will formally recognise an independent palestinian state. the irish prime minister, simon harris, said that palestinian and israeli children deserved peace and that it was "the right thing to do". spain's pedro sanchez said there was "an obligation to act" while norway's prime minister said a two—state solution was in israel's best interests. at least 140 members of the un already formally recognise palestinian statehood — others including the us and the uk, do not. translation: the progressive coalition government of spain | echoing the majority feeling of spaniards at large. next tuesday, on the 28th of may, we will at cabinet

meeting recognise the state of palestine. we are going to recognise the state of palestine for many reasons, which i can summarise in three words. peace, justice and logic. peace because this is the only solution to the conflict. by that i imply the essential question of the two states, israel and palestine, accompanied by mutual security guarantees as many other countries do. recognition is an act of powerful, political and symbolic value. it is an expression of our view that palestine holds, and should be able to vindicate, the full right of state, including self—determination, self—governance, territorial integrity and security, as well as recognising palestine's own obligations under international law. it is a message to those in palestine who advocate and work for a future of peace and democracy, that we fully

respect your aspirations to be living freely, in control of your own affairs and under your own leadership. israel has said the moves endanger the country's security, and is recalling its ambassadors to the three countries. here's our correspondent in jerusalem, dan johnson. yeah, there's been angry reaction and immediate action from the israelis. the foreign minister israel katz says, "i have instructed "the immediate recall of israel's ambassadors "to ireland and to norway in light of these decisions". he says, "i'm sending a clear and unequivocal message. "we will not remain silent in the face of those "undermining our sovereignty and endangering our security". he says, "today's decision sends a message to the "palestinians and to the world that terrorism pays". and he said it's a distorted step. and he's talked about a move which would undermine the chances for peace and question israel's right to self defence.

this was issued just before spain joined ireland and norway. so the foreign minister had said, if spain followed through on its intention to recognise a palestinian state, a similar step will be taken against it. so i think we can expect the israeli ambassador to madrid to be recalled back to jerusalem for these consultations that will be happening with the ambassadors who are being hauled back from oslo and from dublin. there is anger in israeli politics. they've known this was coming. this had been widely signalled for weeks. but they have the date now, from the 28th of may, that these nations will formally recognise palestinian statehood. and the israelis think that this is not the right move. they say it's not the right way to guarantee peace, not the right way to guarantee security. but i think the difference in approach here of nations is those who feel that, actually the peace process should start with the recognition of palestinian statehood, rather than that being the end product of it. but the israelis are clear — benjamin netanyahu doesn't even

support a two—state solution. and he says this move by norway, by ireland and by spain is rewarding hamas for the terror attacks that it carried out on the 7th of october. i spoke to our diplomatic correspondent james landale, who broke done what these developments mean, and whether the uk is likely to also recognise a palestinian state. what these countries are trying to do is shift the diplomatic dial. they are not massive players in the conflict at the moment but one card they can play is recognising the state of palestine. they have chosen to play it now. other european countries, that currently do not recognise palestine are thinking, when should they play their cards too? there is disagreement at the moment. in the past, most of the holdout countries — the united states and the majority of europe — basically said this should be part of the endgame, part of some ultimate, final settlement to the political division and fighting within the middle east. that position has shifted

with some countries. david cameron, the uk foreign secretary, shifted that a couple of months ago, saying, maybe we could have that recognition moment on the way to try to generate momentum towards a final settlement. but most of those european countries think that these countries that have gone today — norway, spain and ireland — are doing it a little bit too early. what these three countries are saying is, no, if you really want to get a ceasefire, those hostages released, if you want to get some kind of deal, you have got to have some kind of political process. this, they hope, might kick—start that. i realise we are going back to basics but i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing on a complex story. recognition of a palestinian state is not the same as not having diplomatic relations, because all of these countries have diplomatic relations all the time with various elements in the palestinian authority. this is something that already exists, these conversations, at least. on some level there are technicalities. for example the uk doesn't have an ambassador to the state

of palestine because the uk does not recognise the state of palestine. but there is a senior diplomat, a british diplomat, who does engage with the palestinian authorities. there is a diplomatic protocol in the same way that many countries have diplomatic representation in taiwan but they do not technically accept that taiwan is a separate nation from china. a lot of this is about symbolism. what the three countries who have made this decision hope is that this symbolic act will drive a shift in critical dynamic. will it make much difference to the fate of palestinians on the ground? not in the short term. let's get more on spain's decision to recognise palestine, and international reaction... here's our madrid correspondent guy hedgecoe.

pedro sanchez, the socialist prime minister, made this announcement and seemed to pre—empt what he expected to be a very tough response from israel, by saying that this decision was not being made against the israeli people or thejewish people. he said nor was it a decision that was seeking to favour hamas. of course israel doesn't agree with that at all. but he seemed very keen to make that point. he does seem to have got a lot of support on the left, as you would expect — his own socialist party and parties to his left — for this initiative. but spanish politics is actually divided so there has been quite a lot of criticism of the initiative from the right, particularly the far right, which has said that the spanish government is rewarding what it calls satanic terrorism. the conservatives, who are the main opposition party, they didn't use quite such strong language but they were

critical of this as well, they said that a ceasefire needs to be in place, israeli hostages should be released, before taking this kind of initiative. what is his motive for the timing of doing this now? the feeling was this was quite a difficult one to juggle because there are so many countries working together — norway and ireland had to be in line with spain on this. a lot of the timing had to do with the fact that spain, ireland and norway had to agree on the date. for spain it is next tuesday, it is a cabinet meeting. it makes sense for the spanish government. i think if the announcement had been made today, for example, it would have been rather difficult because pedro sanchez was appearing in congress and a lot of other issues were being talked about. i think the main priority here was for the countries involved to show a united front and to show they were making this announcement today together, and that they are

going to confirm and formalise this step together on may the 28th. so what does palestinian statehood mean in practice? let's hearfrom dr george kyris, associate professor of international politics at the university of birmingham who's an expert in state recognition and sovereignty. being recognised as a state is considered to be very important for being a state and we live in a world of states. we have societies based on states. so if people want to have the relations they need to have their state recognised by the other members of the club and if today you ask the internet how many states there are in the world today, the answer you will get is the number of states that are generally recognised by other words the live others, usually by an united nations

membership. it matters for palestinians to be seen as a state and also for the conflict with israel. it is interesting you describe their being recognised by other members of the club, because there doesn't seem to be an overall specific mechanism for recognising a state worldwide. or is there? no, there isn't a formal mechanism. perhaps an implicit way with others is generally recognised is whether it is a member of the united nations, for example. if you ask the internet which is the youngest state in the world and so you will get is south sudan, which was the latest member to get admitted to the united nations. this is also where palestinians have been so keen to join the united nations as a member. there are different clubs, as well, aren't there?

for example the state of palestine is recognised by the international olympic committee, by the international court ofjustice, so how do we rank these different groupings and their importance when it comes to actually conferring statehood? that is a very good point. the explanation why palestine is considered a state by some international organisations and not others is often technicalities of how these decisions are taken. but i think what is important is the benefits that come with recognition. so actually one of the recent examples is the court cases of international criminal court which, if palestine was not recognised implicitly as a state by the court, then the decisions about this could not have been possible.

it is a lot about symbolism, maybe, but it is also about being more practical and the effect that recognition might give you. tens of thousands of people have attended the funeral procession for the iranian president ebrahim raisi, and seven others who died in a helicopter crash on sunday. many of those who've taken to the streets of tehran are holding photos of mr raisi or carrying the iranian flag. iranians had earlier been sent text messages urging them to attend. among those attending is the hamas leader ismail haniyeh, who said he'd come to represent the palestinian people. our chief international correspondent, lyse doucet was on the show with me a short while ago, and gave us the latest analysis on this..

this is almost a signature image of iran that has really been shown across the world ever since the islamic revolution of 1979 where there were millions of people on the streets. every time there is a major event, including significant funerals, this is what they do. they call people onto the streets. some of that is genuine sorrow, that people are coming to mourn. we have seen people sobbing, pushing forward in the crush of people. look at the images, you can see the way they are losing control of the casket. i was at the funeral in 1989 of the first revolutionary leader and the casket was carried through the crowds and he fell out of the coffin there was such a frenzy. i hope they control it more. you can see how the people are carrying it. this is notjust allowing people to mourn, it is also a moment, as you say, for the example two islamic republic, ruling conservatives, to project power, to project unity, the project continuity.

they are doing it in the midst of what has been posts on social media, people celebrating. there have been warnings the past few days by the top prosecutor that they should not spread lies and insults. police cases have been filed by some iranian websites. in broadcasting these pictures, these live images on state television, is to go across iran and they know the world is watching. this was such a significant event that happened. the death of a president, in many other countries around the world, would be a real moment where the state would stop, things will change. but not so in iran. it literally came out of the sky, this helicopter crash, three helicopters in a convoy going to azerbaijan across mountainous terrain in very bad weather, heavy fog. the helicopter carrying ebrahim raisi and his foreign minister came down.

it was a shock that the president in the structure of the islamic republic is not the most powerful person. ebrahim raisi is not regarded as the most powerful president in iranian history. in fact he came to power in 2021 elections where all of the main challengers, reformist candidates, even moderate conservatives, were excluded from running. not surprising it had a very low turnout. in fact the lowest ever turnout in a presidential election. ebrahim raisi was seen that he was possibly groomed to take the top jobs of that process has been disrupted. they will be scrambling now to find a person in the same mould as ebrahim raisi, a hardliner, conservative, ideological, absolutely loyal to the supreme leader, to replace him. when it comes to policy the direction of foreign

policy, that is left in the hands of the supreme leader and more and more the islamic revolutionary guard corps. it won't change. around the world and across the uk. this is bbc news. at an inquiry in the uk — the former post office boss has broken down — apologising to subpostmasters and their families for everything they suffered. more than 900 sub—postmasters were wrongly prosecuted for stealing because of incorrect information from a computer system called horizon. many sub—postmasters went to prison for false accounting and theft, i would like to say how sorry i am about _ i would like to say how sorry i am about what — i would like to say how sorry i am about what the sub—postmasters have suffered _ about what the sub—postmasters have suffered and their families. i

followed and listens to all of the human _ followed and listens to all of the human impact statements. i was very affected _ human impact statements. i was very affected by— human impact statements. i was very affected by them. i listen to one who said — affected by them. i listen to one who said that he wanted somebody to stand outside his old post office with them so that he could tell them exactly _ with them so that he could tell them exactly what he had been through. i am very— exactly what he had been through. i am very very sorry. i would also like to _ am very very sorry. i would also like to apologise to alan bates and ian henderson from second sight. and to lord _ ian henderson from second sight. and to lord arbuthnot. we maids their work— to lord arbuthnot. we maids their work so _ to lord arbuthnot. we maids their work so much harder. let's go straight back to the inquiry.

this is from a mr pennington that was received in september 2013. in the second paragraph, yeasts explained his background. he says that he woks constantly and consistently for the post office. it was very stressful due to the economic environment. at the same time, customerservice economic environment. at the same time, customer service was very satisfactory. my complaint is from when the horizon system was implemented to stop there was a lass from the system due to incorrect procedures. there was a lack of training. that resulted in a loss of over £18,000. i was assured that it would be returned. but it was not. i had to make good the shortfall. at

the time, i took my grievance of the area manager, only to be told that the contract stipulated that all shortages must be made good and there was no appeal procedure. looking at that complaint, is this the kind of letter that you described before the break as one that would have been sent down the chief executive's office as correspondence to be dealt with? yes, it would. it would have been for all— yes, it would. it would have been for all executive correspondence. it would _ for all executive correspondence. it would have — for all executive correspondence. it would have gone through that process _ would have gone through that rocess. ., ~ process. the thing that mr pennington _ process. the thing that mr pennington complains - process. the thing that mr i pennington complains about, process. the thing that mr - pennington complains about, that process. the thing that mr _ pennington complains about, that he was told that the contract stipulated that all shortages must be made good, was that your understanding of the contract at

this time, september 2013? yes. understanding of the contract at this time, september 2013? yes, it was my understanding _ this time, september 2013? yes, it was my understanding of— this time, september 2013? yes, it was my understanding of the - was my understanding of the contract _ was my understanding of the contract. once a postmaster had gone through— contract. once a postmaster had gone through various stages, and i realise — through various stages, and i realise now from what we know that this was _ realise now from what we know that this was done very inadequately, but the complaint and the dispute would io the complaint and the dispute would go through a particular process, and if it wasn't— go through a particular process, and if it wasn't resolved, then the contract — if it wasn't resolved, then the contract was to make good. my assumption through this time was that the _ assumption through this time was that the resolution process worked and for— that the resolution process worked and for many cases it didn't do that _ and for many cases it didn't do that. ~ , ., that. where did you get the understanding _ that. where did you get the understanding that - that. where did you get the understanding that the - that. where did you get the - understanding that the contract said that the charges should be made good? it was a factor within the

organisation, so contract managers and area _ organisation, so contract managers and area managers would say that would _ and area managers would say that would say — and area managers would say that would say that that was the requirement of the contract. you said that it _ requirement of the contract. you said that it was _ requirement of the contract. wm. said that it was known that this was a requirement. the contract doesn't actually say that at all. the contract — actually say that at all. the contract does _ actually say that at all. the contract does not - actually say that at all. the contract does not use - actually say that at all. the contract does not use the words make good _ contract does not use the words make aood. ., contract does not use the words make iood, ., ., , contract does not use the words make aood. ., ., , ., contract does not use the words make aood. ., .,, ., , good. nor does it say all losses. could you _ good. nor does it say all losses. could you ask— good. nor does it say all losses. could you ask the _ good. nor does it say all losses. could you ask the question - good. nor does it say all losses. i could you ask the question again? where _ could you ask the question again? where did — could you ask the question again? where did you get the understanding from that sub—postmasters had to make good all losses irrespective of the cause of them? i am make good all losses irrespective of the cause of them?— the cause of them? i am not sure that i the cause of them? i am not sure that i had — the cause of them? i am not sure that l had that _ the cause of them? i am not sure that i had that understanding. - the cause of them? i am not sure l that i had that understanding. what was our that i had that understanding. twist

was your understanding by that i had that understanding. "hisisgt was your understanding by september 2013 at the operation of the contract as five sub—postmasters were concerned? i'm sorryl i'm sorry i don't know that i could recall— i'm sorry i don't know that i could recall how— i'm sorry i don't know that i could recall now what but i knew what contract — recall now what but i knew what contract said at that time. i have read _ contract said at that time. i have read the — contract said at that time. i have read the contract a number of times. what _ read the contract a number of times. what i _ read the contract a number of times. what i can— read the contract a number of times. what i can recall from that time is that colleagues were saying that the post office could not in all cases determine what had happened and so the contract held the sub—postmasters liable for losses in the office _ sub—postmasters liable for losses in the office. my understanding was that that —

the office. my understanding was that that was a detailed dispute resolution process. but i cannot recall— resolution process. but i cannot recall the — resolution process. but i cannot recall the details are back on track — recall the details are back on track. . ., .. recall the details are back on track. _, .. ., track. the contract said that the said purse _ track. the contract said that the said purse buster— track. the contract said that the said purse buster was _ track. the contract said that the l said purse buster was responsible for losses, what was the point of being the invert investigation? the oint of being the invert investigation? the point of the investigation was to make _ point of the investigation was to make sure was to make sure that we found _ make sure was to make sure that we found the _ make sure was to make sure that we found the cause of the loss. why was the cause of— found the cause of the loss. why was the cause of the _ found the cause of the loss. why was the cause of the last _ found the cause of the loss. why was the cause of the last relevant - found the cause of the loss. why was the cause of the last relevant if - the cause of the last relevant if said postmaster had to make good or losses? �* .., , said postmaster had to make good or losses? �* , ., , , losses? because it would be highly irresponsible _ losses? because it would be highly irresponsible for _ losses? because it would be highly irresponsible for an _ losses? because it would be highly irresponsible for an organisation i losses? because it would be highly irresponsible for an organisation to be prosecuting and finding people guilty— be prosecuting and finding people guilty of— be prosecuting and finding people guilty of things that they were not guilty— guilty of things that they were not guilty of— guilty of things that they were not guilty of and vice versa. there is a

requirement— guilty of and vice versa. there is a requirement to investigate anything that is— requirement to investigate anything that is unsatisfactory and shortfalls either way, where they are disputed, have to go through proper— are disputed, have to go through proper process. fist are disputed, have to go through proper process-— are disputed, have to go through proper process. at the moment, i'm not talkin: proper process. at the moment, i'm not talking about _ proper process. at the moment, i'm not talking about prices _ proper process. at the moment, i'm not talking about prices fusion. - proper process. at the moment, i'm not talking about prices fusion. i - not talking about prices fusion. i am exploring your understanding of the contract and the extent to which it permitted recovery against the sub—postmasters under what circumstances. was it your understanding that it permitted recovery of all losses irrespective of the reason? i recovery of all losses irrespective of the reason?— of the reason? i honestly can't remember _ of the reason? i honestly can't remember what _ of the reason? i honestly can't remember what it _ of the reason? i honestly can't remember what it was - of the reason? i honestly can't remember what it was at - of the reason? i honestly can't remember what it was at the l of the reason? i honestly can't - remember what it was at the time. i would _ remember what it was at the time. i would have — remember what it was at the time. i would have completely relied on the people _ would have completely relied on the people whose job it was to determine what the _ people whose job it was to determine what the contract did or didn't say and how— what the contract did or didn't say and how it — what the contract did or didn't say and how it was applied.— what the contract did or didn't say and how it was applied. when you are network director, _ and how it was applied. when you are network director, we _ and how it was applied. when you are network director, we are _ and how it was applied. when you are network director, we are the - network director, we are the ultimate line manager such people? yes they reported to a general manager— yes they reported to a general manager and they reported through for three _ manager and they reported through for three or four different levels to me —

for three or four different levels to me. ., �* for three or four different levels tome. ., �* ., for three or four different levels tome. ., ., to me. you can't say what your understanding _ to me. you can't say what your understanding of _ to me. you can't say what your understanding of the _ to me. you can't say what your understanding of the contract i to me. you can't say what your - understanding of the contract was? is that right? i can't say now. i cannot— is that right? i can't say now. i cannot recall now what i understood the wording to be in the contract and the — the wording to be in the contract and the clause that applied to this. this was— and the clause that applied to this. this was a — and the clause that applied to this. this was a process that had been in place _ this was a process that had been in place for— this was a process that had been in place for many years and it was run by an— place for many years and it was run by an experienced team. the inquiry has a _ by an experienced team. the inquiry has a witness statement from the general— has a witness statement from the general manager in charge of that team _ general manager in charge of that team and — general manager in charge of that team and she was... she was a very responsible — team and she was... she was a very responsible and assiduous general manager — responsible and assiduous general manager. i had a number of different areas _ manager. i had a number of different areas of— manager. i had a number of different areas of responsibility and i had to rely on _ areas of responsibility and i had to rely on the — areas of responsibility and i had to rely on the experts in those areas. i rely on the experts in those areas. iwouldn't — rely on the experts in those areas. i wouldn't have trusted my own interpretation or memory of a contract — interpretation or memory of a contract in _ interpretation or memory of a contract in an individual case. |

contract in an individual case. wasn't contract in an individual case. i wasn't involved at that level. can we move on? an e—mail to you in late 2014, from tim mccormack, and if you scroll down please. thank you. dear paula, this is directly to you speaking on behalf of the post office saying that there are no systemic errors in the horizon. this is true because we deal with so many customers per day and so many branches. that was a frequent refrain of the post office at that time, wasn't it? it

frequent refrain of the post office at that time, wasn't it?— frequent refrain of the post office at that time, wasn't it? it was true and it was — at that time, wasn't it? it was true and it was completely _ at that time, wasn't it? it was true and it was completely unfair - at that time, wasn't it? it was true and it was completely unfair in - and it was completely unfair in these — and it was completely unfair in these cases. | and it was completely unfair in these cases-— these cases. i think mark and ourself these cases. i think mark and yourself might _ these cases. i think mark and yourself might want - these cases. i think mark and yourself might want to - these cases. i think mark and j yourself might want to review these cases. i think mark and - yourself might want to review the periodic messages sent out by horizon about systemic errors that arise from time to time and are fixed, some involving automatic corrections. you are surrounded by people in your office to tell you that all is well. you have no personal knowledge of operating horizon or any in—depth technical knowledge. what of the people are telling you that all is well had the same attributes? forget systemic errors for the moment and can sit a intermittent errors which were caused by communication problems. i know that more than one that they exist. they occur at different times in different branches. they reported to the nbs sea. i would really like to the nbs sea. i would really like to see the number of times this has

been reported. it causes financial loss as to the said postmaster. the wise said postmaster knows how to get his money back so you don't hear many complaints. you will hear from the audit team if they caught someone doing it though. the errors are intermittent. there is no sequence of events that can cause this error to reappear in any particular branch. how can you fix something that you don't know how to is caught in the first place? the only way to start all over again. there is a documented report of the same error randomly in a wide number of branches. i'm pretty sure that i can arrange for the error to be replicated etc. what steps did you personally take in response to mr maccormack�*s e—mail? i personally take in response to mr maccormack's e-mail?_ maccormack's e-mail? i can't remember — maccormack's e-mail? i can't remember this _ maccormack's e-mail? i can't remember this particular - maccormack's e-mail? i can't - remember this particular e-mail. but remember this particular e—mail. but i rememberthis particular e—mail. but i am remember this particular e—mail. but i am aware _ rememberthis particular e—mail. but i am aware that there are others at

i am aware that there are others at i responded — i am aware that there are others at i responded to 210 in person. i then asked _ i responded to 210 in person. i then asked for— i responded to 210 in person. i then asked for issues to be followed up. where you are advised to stay away from mr maccormack by roger williams? br; from mr maccormack by roger williams? �* , ., from mr maccormack by roger williams? j ., a ., , ::' ~ williams? by roger williams in 2016. white was that? _ williams? by roger williams in 2016. white was that? first _ williams? by roger williams in 2016. white was that? first of _ williams? by roger williams in 2016. white was that? first of all, - williams? by roger williams in 2016. white was that? first of all, i - williams? by roger williams in 2016. white was that? first of all, i am - white was that? first of all, i am very sorry. _ white was that? first of all, i am very sorry, because _ white was that? first of all, i am very sorry, because to _ white was that? first of all, i am i very sorry, because to maccormack had an— very sorry, because to maccormack had an insight into what i said earlier, — had an insight into what i said earlier, which is the lesson of me being _ earlier, which is the lesson of me being too— earlier, which is the lesson of me being too trusting. the comments he makes _ being too trusting. the comments he makes in _ being too trusting. the comments he makes in this, with hindsight, ring true and _ makes in this, with hindsight, ring true and are — makes in this, with hindsight, ring true and are hard to see again. i had numbers of e—mails, but over the years. _ had numbers of e—mails, but over the years, probably half a dozen. when you add _ years, probably half a dozen. when you add them all together it looks to be _ you add them all together it looks to be quite a few, over a period of time _ to be quite a few, over a period of time i_

to be quite a few, over a period of time i don't — to be quite a few, over a period of time i don't know that i noticed it that much— time i don't know that i noticed it that much but i've applied to ten and he _ that much but i've applied to ten and he has — that much but i've applied to ten and he has said this in his statement, his e—mails became more extreme _ statement, his e—mails became more extreme in— statement, his e—mails became more extreme in that tone to me. exasperated._ extreme in that tone to me. exaserated. , . , . exasperated. yes, and i understand wh that is exasperated. yes, and i understand why that is the _ exasperated. yes, and i understand why that is the case. _ exasperated. yes, and i understand why that is the case. but _ exasperated. yes, and i understand why that is the case. but the - exasperated. yes, and i understand why that is the case. but the tone l why that is the case. but the tone of the _ why that is the case. but the tone of the e—mails became difficult to deal with. — of the e—mails became difficult to deal with, and i was advised that the best— deal with, and i was advised that the best way of responding to this was tom — the best way of responding to this was tom so — the best way of responding to this was to... so in every case, as far as i_ was to... so in every case, as far as i recall. — was to... so in every case, as far as i recall. we _ was to... so in every case, as far as i recall, we picked up the issues mr maccormack raised. and properly investi . ated mr maccormack raised. and properly investigated them? _ mr maccormack raised. and properly investigated them? the _ mr maccormack raised. and properly investigated them? the one - mr maccormack raised. and properly investigated them? the one i - mr maccormack raised. and properly investigated them? the one i can - investigated them? the one i can remember _ investigated them? the one i can remember clearly _ investigated them? the one i can remember clearly was _ investigated them? the one i can remember clearly was around - investigated them? the one i can. remember clearly was around 2016 where _ remember clearly was around 2016 where a _ remember clearly was around 2016 where a full investigation was put in place _ where a full investigation was put in place and what i was told back was we _ in place and what i was told back was we had found the explanation for the issue _ was we had found the explanation for the issue he was raising. i cannot remember— the issue he was raising. i cannot remember in this particular case. do ou remember in this particular case. you know in remember in this particular case. drr you know in this incident whether

you