wow, you get to watch all your favorite stuff. it's to die for. now you won't miss a thing. this is the way. the xfinity 10g network. made for streaming. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... woman: two retiring executives turn their focus to greyhounds, giving these former race dogs a real chance to win. a raymond james financial advisor gets to know you, your purpose, and the way you give back. life well planned.

george: actually, you don't need vision to do most things in life. it's exciting to be part of a team driving the technology forward. i think that's the most rewarding thing. people who know, know bdo. man: cunard is a proud supporter of public television. on a voyage with cunard, the world awaits. a world of flavor. diverse destinations. and immersive experiences. a world of leisure... and british style. all with cunard's "white-star" service. announcer: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation, pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. announcer: and now, "bbc news" ♪

>> hello. ♪ this is "the context." >> they can go after me as a politician. they can go after me with votes. they are not going to go after me with that kind of lawsuit. >> other states would have moved to remove him from the ballot. other states would try to remove president biden from the ballots. it would've caused election chaos. >> this is america, this is america. [applause] i will defeat donald trump fair and square, but i want him on that ballot. ♪ >> yes, the u.s. supreme court rules colorado cannot stop donald trump rule -- running for office. that sets up a rematch of the

2020 election, biden versus trump. a contest 70% of the country says it does not want. we will look at the court decision and the politics around it. also, israel accuses the u.n. agency responsible for distributing aid to palestinians that it employed over 450 people involved in the october 7 attacks. we will get reaction from that in new york. some big votes in the house of lords, where peers are debating the rwanda bill. we will bring you that live. in fact, that is where we are going to start. the prime minister pledged that planes for rwanda would be leaving this spring. the costs continue to mount. a recent reports of the cost of the policy stands at 370 million

pounds. the prime minister says it is the deterrent they need and should be considered a cost savings since the bill to house asylum-seekers will reach 11 billion pounds by 2026. the house of lords will have their say tonight. that is the scene from the floor of the house of lords as we speak. we are expecting a vote shortly. let's bring in our political correspondent. the government has already suffered a defeat on its bill in relation to whether this applies to international law. >> more than one, five times peers in the house of lords have voted down the government already this evening. on that amendment to include a clause that saythe bill must adhere to international law.

but also other amendments to delay the implementation of the plan until protections are in place and a number of other things as well. this is the government's plan to send some asylum-seekers to rwanda, where they would claim asylum there instead. rishi sunak argues this bill is necessary to provide a deterrent to get small boats to stop crossing the channel. last year, the supreme court ruled that the scheme was unlawful because it had concerns about whether rwanda was a safe country and the bill says rwanda is safe and courts client here -- can't hear claims to the contrary. earlier this year, rishi sunak urged the house of lordsot to "frustrate the will of the people." if peers in the house of lords heard that, they certainly

aren't listening. by majorities of around 100, they have voted in the government five times this evening. >> are they objecting to off shoring migrants or is this a constitutional issue that the court has decided with respect to rwanda? >> the amendments this evening have more focus on the latter points, on the constitutional question and whether the government can just overrule a decision of the supreme court. if i can read you a quote to show you the strength of feeling, one lord said, "in all my years, i never told a lie and having asked -- i'm being asked to tell a lie, for goodness sake, let's tell the truth." the government said rwanda is safe to send asylum-seekers to and the courts can't say

anything to the contrary. >> we are told rwanda is drafting an asylum law. we are told people are being retrained in rwanda to the satisfaction of the british authorities. if that progress was put forward, the lords per se would not have a problem with sending migrants to rwanda? >> they will get to some of the more fundamental objections they have on wednesday, but today the amendments that they are talking about are more around that. they say the bill should not be implemented until the changes have been put in place. but they say they haven't been put in place, so the bill can't go through, in their mind. >> the house of lords isn't elected in the u.k. and therefore we will have this ping-pong of the bill going back and forth between the two houses, but eventually it is the elected house of commons that will make the decision. >> exactly.

the bigger picture is is puts that in elected house, the house of lords, on a massive collision course with the government. they will change their -- send their changes back to the house of commons, the elected house. they will send it back to the lords. ultimately, they cannot block a law, but they can delay it. we are expecting a general election later this year. rishi sunak wants to get flights off before that. >> george gallow took his seat in the house of commons pledging allegiance to the king, as part of the usual swearing-in ceremony. he has appealed to jeremy corbyn to begin a socialist movement. >> i don't expect him to join

our party, but i have called on him to launch and lead an alliance, a coalition of socialist and progressive and antiwar organizations. in fact, he should have done it long ago. if he had done it long ago, it would have been a bigger start than it will be if he does it now. i very much hope you will do it. >> we were talking last week that there is a significant threat to the conservative party from reform, the party to their right. we said there wasn't something similar on the left and that was a better situation and now suddenly there is, potentially of george galloway were to get his way. >> that is completely right and i think george galloway will be looking to be a thorn in the side of the labour party leader, over this issue of the conflict in gaza.

there is concern both among the labour party and in the government about the tone of the public debate particularly around the conflicts in the middle east and the effect that is having on the safety of mp's. the arrival of george galloway, who has been a passionate campaigner for the palestinian cause for a long time, will do nothing to calm emotions around how this conflict is affecting politics in the u.k. >> good to see you, thank you very much for that. we will keep our eye on those votes. tomorrow is a key date in the race for the white house. it is super tuesday, 15 u.s. states will hold their primaries. today, the supreme court cleared the path for donald trump to run in colorado. the nine justices overruled the state's decision that the republican front runner should be removed from the ballot under clse 3, the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment,

because of his role in the january 6 riot. the supreme court concluded that states can't disqualify -- can disqualify candidates for state or local offices, but not the presidency. trump called the ruling a win for the country. >> i think it will go a long way toward bringing our country together, which our country needs. and they worked long, they worked hard, and frankly they worked very quickly on something that will be spoken about 100 years from now or 200 years from now. extremely important. >> yes, the nomination for the republican party looks like a bit of a done deal, but nikki haley, his opponent, is not pulling out. at a campaign rally in texas, she made reference to the decision. >> the supreme court ruled today that donald trump could stay on the ballot and i think that was

important. we don't ever want some elected official in a state or anybody else saying who can and cannot be on a ballot. this is america, this is [applause] look, i will defeat donald trump fair and square, but i want him on that ballot read -- valid. >> thank you for being with us in the program. the important thing to say is that t court didn't decide whether donald trump engaged in insurrection. they were silent on that. on what basis at they come to their decision? >> that is exactly right. thank you for having me. they decided, as he said earlier, on the grounds of the states do t have the power to enforce section three of the 14th amendment. what does that mean? what brought us to this pass is

that the colorado supreme court and a secretary of state in maine had decided that both this amendment was executed, that trump, through their findings, had engaged in insurrection and those parts of the ruling remain. but the supreme court decided that -- essentially restoring trump to the ballot, it said that it is not up to the states and by a slim majority found that there is only one way that this disqualification clause can be enforced and that is through an act of congress, severely limiting its application and clearing that constitutional hurdle for trump in the 2024 election. >> just to be clear, if he was

convicted of insurrection or interference in the election, there would still need to be a vote in congress to confirm that he is removed from the ballot? the courts alone cannot do that? >> that is a very interesting question that i have heard legal bate raging so far on that very question. because the very statute of insurrection, under some legal theory, could be decided to be an act of congress, but to an extent that is pretty academic. remember, trump is in charge under the statute of insurrecti. the charges he is facing with regard to the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol are conspiracy to defraud the united states, to obstruct an official proceeding, and other statutes.

for all practical purposes, the supreme court left this up to the u.s. congress, which it seems quite clear is not going to come up with the statute that would lay out the rules by which this disqualification clause can be enforced. to your point of little bit earlier, the findings by originally a trial court after a trial on this issue and by a marity of the colorado supreme court, every court that engaged with the basic premise, the central question of did former president trump engage in insurrection, every court that grappled with that issue found that he did. no court that grappled with that issue found the opposite. >> interesting. let me read what amy coney barrett read in her opinion.

the court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a presidential election. particularly in this circumstance, writings on the court should turthe temperature down, not up. for the present purposes, our differences are far more important -- less important than our unanimity. that is interesting in two direions. first of all, they are concerned how their rulings will be viewed at what is a particularly divisive moment. that is the first thing to say. >> that is absolutely correct. you were saying that another interesting thing about it is the acknowledgment of the controversy surrounding it. on a very basic sense, this was a potentially extremely divisive issue.

it doesn't get more polarizing than whether or not to disqualify the front runner of a major party. >> you could read it the other way. she says, for present purposes we are agreed. there is a biggerecision on their plate, the immunity case, which they were not bound to take, but they have taken it and will not give a decision until june. many people thought that was the court helping donald trump to delay the whole process. do we sense from that statement, the way she has phrased it, that they are more divided on that issue than they are on this? >> i would say that there is a sharp division on both. let me explain why. one, i think amy coney barrett, the context of that separate statement in regard to this concurrence of the opinion is that she agreed with the court's liberal wing.

on the issue of fundamentally did the court go too far, where they all agreed. where this is a unanimous and the court is speaking in one voice on the question of is the ruling of the colorado supreme court, can it stand? no, it cannot. where they agree on that is that it would be chaos, in the courts ruling, to have a state make a decision on the presidency itself. that is where the court agreed. in a 5-4 decision with the barrett joining the liberal wing all but in word, she didn't join them, but she shared the view of them that the court went too far, they could have just said the states can't wait in. but they affirmatively said,

here is how congress can wade in and it is a way so limiting that it all but clears trump's hurdles and it might be a little bit of a signal for things to come with the immunity case. where does barrett stand on the question of this broad assertion of presidential immunity? are we seeing a signal that trump might have a tougher audience than he may think with one of his appointees, amy coney barrett? >> yes, really interesting. really good to get your thoughts. thank you. you are watching bbc news. let's take a quick look at some of the stories here today. charities and campaigners are urging ministers to set up an inquiry into the treatment of unaccompanied children seeking asylum in the u.k. after an official report said basic checks were not carried out to keep the children safe.

the home office set the welfare of the children was an utmost priority. there will be no option for people -- young people to live on benefits from labour. a rare ferrari stolen has been recovered by police. the vehicle was shipped to japan after it was taken in 1995. the car is worth 350,000 pounds and was one of two that were stolen. the other remains missing. no arrests have yet been made. you are live with bbc news. the u.s. vice president's meeting with the israeli opposition leader at the white house today. the u.s. is getting increasingly fed up with the prime minister

benjamin netanyahu. yesterday, the vice president used her speech in alabama to ramp up the administration's calls for a cease-fire. >> given the immense scale of suffering in gaza, there must be an immediate cease-fire. [applause] >> last week, president biden that cease-fire could come as early as today, but hopes are failing for any imminent agreement. talks did continue in cairo, but without any israeli involvement. right now, the general assembly in new york is meeting to address the humanitarian situation in gaza. there are reasonable grounds to

believe sexual violence occurred during and after the hamas attacks on israel on october 7. here is what i top u.n. experts said in the last hour. >> we found clear and convincing information that sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, has been committed against captives. we have reasonable grounds to believe that such violence may be ongoing against those still held captive. i must add that i am of a strong opinion that this finding does not in any way legitimize further violence, but actually reinforces the need for an urgent cease-fire. >> our north american correspondent is watching all of this for us. such a flurry of news headlines in the last hour or so. first of all, that issue of sexual violence against those in

southern israel on october 7 and on hostages that have been taken into gaza. but also this line from the rear admiral in israel, that 450 military operatives from hamas were working for the u.n. agency that looks after palestinians. what do you know about that? >> let's just take those one at a time. we have had this visit to israel and the west bank. it was there to gather information on these allegations out there. and to verify the allegations. she has come back and they met with the israeli institutions and reviewed photos and footage, conducted interviews with survivors and well they were told there are a small number of reported victims still getting

treatment for trauma, they were not able to interview any. but she said based on the information gathered that they did find clear and convincing information that sexual violence, including rape, had been committed against hostages and there were reasonable grounds to believe that a conflict related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations on october 7. she also added that other allegations of rape and sexual violence could not be verified or were unfounded. people might remember the very publicized casof a pregnant woman who reportedly had her womb torn open and her fetus stabbed. they found that story was unfounded. they were also not able to establish there was any real overall pattn of genital mutilation. they also said in their visits to the west bank, they met with civil society, had direct interviews with people there and received inter--- information about sexual violence committed

in detention settings in israel during house raids and a checkpoints and said that would also be given to the u.n. bodies investigating sexual violence in gaza and the west bank. there is also this u.n. general assembly meeting about unrwa and it is there to really defend the agency. we are going to hear that the agency is that a breaking point and hitting back at these allegations i israel that the staff was involved in october 7, saying he hasn't got evidence yet and that he sees this as a direct attack on the agency so that it is unable to survive. >> thank you for that. let's get a quick reaction from the unrwa director from 2017 through 2021, currently serving as senior advisor to the u.n. development coordination team in africa. your reaction to this latest

line that therwere 450 people employed by unrwa who were part of this operation on october 7. >> good evening to you. i think that is a grossman -- gross misrepresentation of what the reality is. during my almost four years, i had no evidence that that higher number of unrwa staffere directly involved with hamas. i fired eight employees, one of whom we could prove was in active member. by far, the majority of unrwa staff, 13,000 of them, loyal civil servants whose mission and daily work consists of providing the best services to their fellow citizens as they can. >> how thoreau is the investigation into those allegations that israel has brought? >> i don't know how far it is, it is an independent investigation.

what i do know and you just heard it from your correspondent is that the unrwa leadership itself has so far not been presented with any evidence on the claims that up to 12 staff for 13 were directly involved in the atrocities of october 7. it will be interesting once the independent investigation tables its report, whether any proof of that could be found. >> on the other side of this, there is an allegation from the u.n. that staff that were taken into israel and interrogated and detained by the israelis were subject to torture and intimidating tactics. do you know anything about that? >> no, i cannot comment directly on that. what i do know from my time, again, are the number of palestinians were in israeli jails, including children, without proper charges. >> thank you very much indeed for being with us. announcer: funding for presentation of this program

is provided by... financial services firm, raymond james. bdo. accountants and advisors. cunard is a proud supporter of public television. announcer: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation, pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... woman: two retiring executives turn their focus to greyhounds, giving these former race dogs a real chance to win. a raymond james financial advisor gets to know you, your purpose, and the way you give back. life well planned.

george