this is still the scene of a canal, this is still the scene of a criminal investigation. that's a summary of the news. newsday is coming up at midnight. now on bbc news, it's time for newsnight with emily maitlis. russia's most famous dissident tells me he believes putin himself is losing control of the russian state. translation: today, in my opinion, this inner circle within the criminal gang has learned how to manipulate putin quite effectively. and we've seen this demonstrated a number of times. meanwhile, russia's defence agency accuses the government here of intellectually impotency and calls the defence minister a vulgar old harpy. they were responding to this: russia should go away — it should shut up. jeremy corbyn seems to have been more cautious. was he right to be? or does he risk isolating his own party? also tonight, seven years to the day since the syrian uprising began, thousands flee eastern ghouta.

we speak to one who's remained. and a post—joy luck club amy tan talks to stephen smith. i had to find something as a distraction but also i had to find beauty in the world. i had to be able to see it. good evening. the russians tend not to mince their words. having accused the defence secretary of intellectual impotence, the russian ministry of defence described great britain as "the headquarters for fake scandal", and called russia's accusers "completely insignifica nt". presumably including the prime minister herself. russia's foreign minister, sergei lavrov, then called her accusations crazy, and suggested the british government was probably keen to deflect attention from its troubles over brexit. may's european allies, however, have rallied to the cause. tonight, we have an exclusive interview with an oligarch in exodus — once russia's richest man, and once a convict

in a siberian gulag. he sees things rather differently to the government back home. first to mark urban on the latest from salisbury and how the west responds now. what is your sense of how things are hotting up diplomatically? you have the war of words you had some of the quotes from, this remarkable statement from the foreign minister, sergey lavrov, that it is an attempt to deflect from brexit. you also have the more formal business that has been going on, the contact with allies, issuing this statement today from the uk, france, germany and the united states, pretty tough from the so—called quad, it read like it was drafted from the british. their language, highly likely the russians did it, etc, but what we will see emerging from this and we will have further steps from nato and possibly at the european summit next week is a feeling they have caught the russians between two fires, eye that you did it or are you allowed something you had to be stolen or used by someone who should not have had it. —— either.

it is a violation of one of the most important end of cold war treaties, the chemical weapons convention, and this is a big moment in terms of that wider diplomacy as well as trying to get to the bottom of how the skripals were poisoned. what else have we learned about the investigation itself? there was a meeting tonight with the police and health authorities to talk to local people who were concerned and more came out in that. they revealed that 46 people had been to hospital complaining of symptoms, all had been checked but allowed to go home. it is only those three, the skripal bubba and detective sergeant bailey who are in hospital. i also worked out, and they must be referring to customers in the pub and in the zizzi restaurant, is that 131 people may have been

exposed to the nerve agent when it was on the skripals. but we don't have much information on their condition, they say critical but stable, but i have been told they are in a coma and are on life support but are there still signs of life in those two people? and do we know anything more about where the nerve agent could have come from? for some days now we have been talking of the importance of the car and if you trace things backwards, they don't, for example, talk about traces of the nerve agent in the home. some of these theories, did the door to bring something from moscow, that opened up and contaminated them, you would have expected that in the home. the police clearly feel the car is critical.

it was heavily contaminated from even the tow truck that took it away was contaminated. the feeling is, could somebody had got into it between the hours of ipm and 1:40pm, this was the police appeal a couple of days ago. we still don't know exactly where it was, who could have had access to it and depending on where it was, can they get cctv coverage that might show someone getting access to it? thank you very much. last week, theresa may pointed the finger at putin. but what if putin himself is being controlled ? it was a theory put to me today by russia's most famous dissident. earlier, i sat down with michael khodorkovsky, at one time russia's richest man as the billionaire owner of yukos oil who spent ten years in a siberian gulag under putin. he admitted to me the atmosphere has dramatically changed now for russians living in london. and, in an extraordinary interview, he alleged that russia's president is now surrounded by criminal gangs who may now have more power than putin himself. i began by asking if he thought the russian state was behind the poisoning of sergei skripal.

just explain to me, do you think the gru now has more power potentially than putin? so does putin ultimately control this gang or not? what could the west do now to make putin changes actions? is it sanctions? is it kicking people out, boycotting the world cup? do any of those stand a chance of having a diplomatic impact if, as you say, they are dealing with criminals? so it is about losing face? so it is about refusing him access or time on the international stage at a g7

or g8 or a of leaders? —— a meeting. let me ask you bluntly, you have accused putin of criminal behaviour, do you not fear for your life here? it has been said there are more spies from russia in london now that at the height of the cold war, do you believe that? what would you call them? you have the elections in russia on sunday, what should russian people do

when it comes to voting? do you think the electorate control the outcome? what will make putin feel he is done? this is extraordinary to hear. your painting putin himself as a puppet of criminal elements of a gang. michael khodorkovsky, thank you very much.

that was the extent of my russian. did jeremy corbyn misread the mood of his party in the commons yesterday when he refused to point the finger at russia? last night, a group of labour backbenchers said it unequivocally accepts the russian state's culpability for the spy poisoning. overnight they were joined by senior frontbenchers who command the defence and foreign affairs briefs. today, corbyn clarified, stressing his condemnation of the attack and saying the evidence pointed towards russia. but he reiterated the need not to rush ahead of evidence in what he refered to as the fevered atmosphere of westminster. is he right to go slowly? or is more cross—party solidarity called for at a time when a foreign agent appears to be targeting people on british soil? here's david grossman. does labour have a russia problem? that, at least, is the worry of a significant number of labour backbenchers. that yesterday's commons performance from jeremy corbyn

was insufficiently robust, too willing to criticise the british government, not prepared to lay the blame squarely on russia. this is the early day motion then? yeah. john woodcock is a long—term labour critic of mr corbyn and he's getting labour mps to sign a commons motion to signal support for the government response. what i think the public can be reassured on is that the vast majority of mp5 from all sides of the house back this approach that the government has set out and we will stand firm together against the threat that russia poses. why do you think your leader has a problem being as clear as you would like him to be, it appears? i don't know and i'm sure he will come on to newsnight to tell you why himself, or maybe his spokesman will. there is obviously, around jeremy, for many years, been people who have had strong links to former soviet russia and the current regime.

it might seem strange that such admiration of russia from sections of the british left should survive the fall of communism. not so, says this historian. i think you need to see that their view for many years was that because the soviet union was socialist, as they were, the soviets were essentially their allies against the capitalist west, particularly america. that was the view that existed right the way through until the fall of communism. but that pervading dislike, hatred even, of the capitalist west, of america, of nato, has stayed with the british left. and as it's stayed with the british left, they've actually looked to some of those nations like russia as potential allies. so, although the russian system has actually has morphed into mega capitalism, or whatever you might like to describe it, in point of fact, they still see russia as a potential ally against the number one enemy. which is?

which is america. which is the capitalist west. which is nato. good on you, jeremy. you're the only one who's speaking sense. thanks, mate. thank you. jeremy corbyn himself was in carlisle today. he denies he's been unclear or equivocal on the salisbury attack. but he did today use a much stronger form of words. the evidence points towards russia on this, therefore, the responsibility must be brought by those that made the weapon, those that brought the weapon into the country and those that used the weapon. what i was asking was questions, questions about the identity of the weapon, questions about the reference to the weapons convention, and also the support of other allies in this. those are the questions i was asking. that's what oppositions are there for. shadow cabinet allies of mr corbyn told me that it's absolutely not the case that labour is in any way blind to the sinister character of the russian government.

i think it's important that people take me at my word on this. i am no friend of mr putin. his human rights record, his autocracy, his kleptocracy. but nonetheless, we have learnt in this country in recent years the importance of complying with international law. and do you think mr corbyn may have, in hindsight, have phrased himself differently yesterday? do you think that might have helped? i think that jeremy corbyn is with me on this, and i am with him. getting professional advice on how to clean up a mess? it's not clear that a single member of the public queueing for selfies with mr corbyn today had any concerns about his stance on russia. among his mps back at westminster, it is another story and one that may yet have consequences.

that was david grossman. we're joined now by ayesha hazarika. she is a writer, commentator and broadcaster who has previously been a special advisor to both harriet harman and ed miliband. alsojoining us, chris williamson. a cheerleader for the corbyn leadership who won back his derby north seat in 2017 after losing it in the 2015 general election. he said his campaign in derby north was "a shining example of how labour can win broad support in marginal constituencies whilst maintaining socialist principles to its core". a long introduction, but it gives you a little of hinterland here. i'm going to start with you, chris. jeremy corbyn does seem to have firmed up his response today. well. in bellicose rhetoric that was unhelpful and jeremy was clear and statesman—like in what he said. clearly, it looks like the evidence points to russia and he made that clear. before we leap into action,

we need to make sure, it seems to me, that we do get the facts right. we know that the kind of crony capitalism in russia and the kind of oligarchy... i think the difference is he wasn't unequivocal and his front bench were, we heard from neil griffiths and emily thornberry — who were in stark contrast to him, very clear that they should be aligned with the government on this and they had no hesitation in pointing the finger at russia. jeremy has been on the right side of history for the last 35 years, on the right side of history on libya, afghanistan and in relation to iraq. which side of history is he on now? is he on the russian side of history? no. it's not about being nice to russia, it's about taking a measured, statesman—like approach and making sure we get our ducks in a row and get our facts straight. it looks pretty clear that this nerve agent came from russia. but what isn't clear is whether the russian state was involved, or indeed some mafia

element was involved. the soviet union comprised a number of different countries... that's exactly what the prime minister was saying — all parties have dissidents from time to time but they are irrelevant and not in keeping with the vast majority of the british public and labour party members. his point was the opposition asks questions and he is the opposition and he did it in a moderate tone. i think he misjudged the tone in the commons and i think he has sort of acknowledged that by his clarifying article today in the guardian, which i think is the right thing to have done. because people were not completely clear about what he was saying. and actually, some very, very senior members of the shadow cabinet who are great supporters ofjeremy corbyn, have privately said to me, theyjust wished that in that moment he had been completely crystal clear about the condemnation.

why — what was holding him back do you think? i don't know. i mean, ithink possibly, you know, as chris has alluded to, he wants to tread cautiously. make no mistake, there is nothing ignoble about proceeding with a cool head, but nobody is suggesting a sort of rush to war or anything like that. but in this situation... i don't know if that is entirely fair. but in this situation, it's a big moment. you have two people who have had an attempted assassination, a police officer injured as well, imagine if the nerve agent had gone off in the london tube. what did you want from him then? it was a real moment, he's made fantastic progress on domestic issues but on the international question, on security, which is a concern to a lot of people, i wanted him to rise to the location and send a message that he did take this seriously and it wasn't

a time for party politics, it was a time for the national interest. the perception that david grossman raised in that film was that there was a group on the left who had this undying affection for all things russian, that seem not to have moved on from soviet russia to putin the oligarch, the kleptocracy, the modern russia that we know now. just in relation to judging the mood of the parliament... just answer that one. i will come onto that, butjeremy judged the mood of the nation, that's the important thing. parliament gets things wrong and they got things wrong on iraq and libya. and on syria, you could argue. well, indeed. i've debated with him, the guy is obsessed and it's utter nonsense. jeremy and the left have called for... you think he's obsessed with saying that the left has an affection for russia? yes, absolutely.

so there is no affection amongst... jeremy, john macdonald, the labour party has been calling for action against the oligarchy, the dirty money in this country, against money—laundering. we called for a version of the magnitsky act. he shared a stage with putin just four years ago. if we are serious about dealing with this kind of crony capitalism, dealing with the mafia state, why is it this government voted down attempts to bring in that legislation? why is it they are in hock to russian oligarchs? they are accepting millions of pounds from these characters. there is a lot in that and definitely starving the cache is an important part of this. which we have been calling forfor a long time. we need to take a step back, where i disagree with chris is this has punctured through to people, i was speaking to people not in our political bubble and they are worried about this, and there are now potentially 14 other deaths that are being investigated as having links to the kremlin. this is a very, very

serious situation. shami chakrabarti is right. we are a party that is internationalist in our approach, we believe in human rights, international law and processes, you can'tjust have another country going around assassinating people on your soil without any consequences. do you that is still right? is that still the party? this is one area jeremy corbyn has properly stuck to his arms and his guts, and it's a very different position to... i wish i had... and i in some ways admire your moral certainty about jeremy being on the right side of everything. these conflicts, geopolitics is really difficult. there are not glib, right, wrong easy solutions in all of this and i think right now you have a tiger by the tail and nobody knows how to handle putin. he is a thug writ large across the world. look at ukraine, him propping up assad in syria, this is not a nice person we want to be associated with. and venezuela.

as the opposition, we need to show some responsibility and solidarity for the national interest and not just the party interest. but that's whatjeremy did and it's notjust about going along with the crowd. i think he missed the moment, the initial moment. i disagree. thank you forjoining us. thousands of civilians have fled the syrian town of hammouriyeh and its surrounding areas in the rebel enclave of eastern ghouta. the observatory for human rights — a watchdog based in britain — called it the biggest exodus of displaced people since the regime launched an offensive on the enclave a month ago. today marks seven years since the uprising in syria began when activists — once optimistic of change — called for a day of rage. seven years that have transformed and wrecked a country. seven years that have killed more of its people than may ever be fully counted. a look at the history of this war in years. joining me now is ahmad khanshour, a father and activist based in eastern ghouta. thank you forjoining us. you were one of those original activists who decided to take on that march seven years ago. just cast your mind back if you can, and tell us what you believe

it would achieve then. right, emily. good evening. well, that video brought a lot of memories to me and a lot of emotion. in fact, it has been a tough seven years. it was the toughest but despite all the violence, we still have hope. we still keep faith and personally, i never believed more in my right as a human being for freedom and democracy. i surely remember seven years ago, i couldn't do it, by the way, on the 15th, i did it on the 18th because i was away from my city. that day where i hugged my first friend who was shot by bashar al—assad's security services. and that day, i was determined that i shall rise up and fight for my rights. and, of course, you and yourfamily

were caught up after that in the sarin attack of 2013. exactly. it has many milestones in ourjourney towards where we are right now. i live in eastern ghouta. i have always loved eastern ghouta, as i love my country, syria, as you love your country, emily. we were caught in the middle of the brutal siege since the beginning of 2013. we have been caught in the sarin attacks, which killed over 1200 people. 1200 people, can you believe it, in the 21st century, were killed because of sarin gas in syria? me, myself, my family, were among the people who suffered, wounded because of that attack. and...

many were unlucky that they died. many milestones. did you think that would be the end of the war? did you think that would be the turning point? exactly, exactly. i thought the first time i held somebody who was shot by the assad regime, i thought that's it, nobody will allow this maniac to keep on killing innocent people just because they asked for some freedom. but nobody even cared. when the siege was very tight among us, we had to eat the grasses from the land and the ground. i thought, that's it. when many of the world leaders drew red lines that if assad stepped on them, he would be changed, and he stepped on many of them

and stepped on many words and nobody did anything. let me ask you, many have left eastern ghouta now. you have chosen to remain. why? i will remain. do you remember your first car, do you remember the first time you redecorated your home? why should i leave? why should i put myself in a situation that i have to be killed under bombardment or leave my country and never come back? i've seen people that have left their cities everywhere. they were unfortunately in displacement and many other cities. if i leave now i know i will never come back. there is too much love i have for this country, for this city. ahmad khanshour, thank you for talking to us. no one who witnessed those first

pictures of the grenfell fire can forget watching how quickly those flames took hold. today, investigators revealed that fire doors tested from the tower could only hold back flames for half the time they were supposed to. experts took an undamaged door from the block and discovered it could withstand a blaze for merely 15 minutes — not the 30 promised. today the housing secretary, sajid javid, confirmed the government would carry out further tests but said there was no evidence that this was a systemic issue. chris cook, who led the investigation for newsnight into the cladding on grenfell, is here now to explain more. tell us what you make of the significance of what they found today. it is a very small binding, about one door they have taken from grenfell. they are testing other doors of the same design. when you put up a big building, you have to install component of a certain amount of fire resistant but the problem with this one is that it was sold as a 30 minute door and it is

only a 15 minute door and if more of the doors that were similarly under resistant it can explain why the fire could move so quickly. what broader questions does it raise? if i were selling a new fire door i would have to get the design mocked up, take a prototype to the lab and get it tested and make sure that what i sold in the shops was the same as the prototype i had tested. this rates question about whether the testing process and the certification process of the goods on the market is up to scratch in england. thank you. the chinese—american writer amy tan has brought thejoy luck club to millions of readers around the world. now she's turned her hand to a memoir, where the past begins, which tells the stories of the women who inspired herfiction, including her own mother and grandmother. it makes for often uncomfortable reading — forced marriages, abandoned children, and mental illness,

as well as her own experience of sexual assault.