disgusting! one week on, residents still furiously divided over a memorial to a burglar who died after being stabbed in the course of robbing a home. we discuss the morality of remembering. thousands of children in iraq, orphaned, lost or abandoned, now the battle for mosul is long over. this woman is on a mission to reunite them with whatever family is left. good evening. we are no clearer tonight precisely what action america — and by extension britain — is prepared to take after the apparent chemical attack on douma in syria, but the cogs are continuing to grind. the emergency cabinet meeting in downing street lasted for more than two hours this afternoon

and agreed that the uk should continue to work with allies to coordinate an international response. it was "vital that the use of chemical weapons did not go unchallenged', the statement after the meeting said, and the cabinet agreed on the need to "take action to deter the further use of chemical weapons by the assad regime." it offered few other details — with no mention of any parliamentary vote. donald trump, who said on wednesday that missiles were "coming", today tweeted that he "never said when", and tonight the white house confirmed it is still assessing intelligence, and that the president will speak to macron and may later tonight. i'm joined by our political editor nick watt and our diplomatic editor mark urban. nick, let's start with you. a cabinet statement after a cabinet that was short on actual facts? cautiously worded, but it includes this crucial sentence, cabinet agreed it was vital the use of chemical weapons did not go unchallenged. that means the cabinet have given theresa may the green light to launch military action if that is what is agreed with donald trump and emmanuel macron.

we are told that the discussions are going to be a genuinely collaborative effort, but one minister did say that we are essentially waiting to hear what donald trump is going to decide. why did they decide this? well, the first thing is that there is a fear that there has been a steady erosion of what is described as the taboo over chemical weapons and a line must be drawn. and there was very, very strong support in the international community for the uk over salisbury. the uk cannot stand alone. but the thinking is that they have a very difficult course to navigate. on the one hand, if there is military action, it must deter future use of chemical weapons. on the other hand, it mustn't escalate. that means the uk saying to russia, you have won in syria, you have achieved strategic objectives, we accept that. parliament is back on monday, no sign of any parliamentary movement? the thinking in whitehall is that the prime minister could go ahead on this without securing a parliamentary vote,

whilst also, the same time, abiding by the convention that has up in recent years, which tempers the use of these ancient prerogative powers which basically allow the prime minister to authorise military force without going to parliament. the way this would happen is that they are pointing to a document in whitehall, drawn up in 2016 by michael fallon, the then defence secretary, this was after david cameron tried and failed to get the support of parliament for military action in syria. this is what michael fallon said back then. in observing the convention, we must ensure that the ability of our armed forces to act quickly and decisively, and to maintain the security of their operations is not compromise. is not compromised. thank you very much. we will come back to politics in a minute.

mark urban is here. we heard from donald trump, about nice, shiny, new missiles. what has been happening since then? as we heard this evening, and on successive evenings, he is not rushing into it. he has created a situation where there is an expectation of action. a lot of viewers would think it is quite wise, if you walk away. of course, if you walk away, russia will say it is because of what we said about being ready to respond, shooting american missiles and maybe even target the aircraft or platforms that launched them. it will be presented by the russians as a major victory. make no mistake, the us military approaches this with trepidation. they have spent 20 years bombing either poor people in pick up trucks or broken states, like libya and iraq. they are now up against a first world air defence system, if they choose to fly over syria. that is causing them to think long and hard, to give cautious advice and somehow to try to find a way in which they would do

some sort of damage, but maybe tell the russians where they were going to strike, that kind of thing, not engage with the russians. that is a very narrow path. all options are on the table and a final decision has not been made. the white house is trying to keep everyone guessing. we will see what happens, folks. in truth, its options and their possible consequences will have to be carefully considered. russia has been very threatening in stating that it would shoot down missiles, possibly even planes, used by the united states and its allies in any potential strike. syria has also moved some of its aircraft to military bases. that adds a layer of complexity, because we would be striking russians and syrians together, potentially. strategists often weigh

military power in terms of capability and intent. right now, limited coalition capability defines its options. option a, just cruise missiles, could happen now but isn't really on, because that is what america did last year and it did not deter assad. option b, and some stealth aircraft and other manned aircraft to the cruise missiles, but still deliver attacks from a distance in order to avoid russian and syrian defences. america and its allies could take this option also tonight. option c involves suppressing syrian air defences so that there can be a sustained campaign against syrian facilities. well, the us and its allies don't yet have the number of planes, ships and missiles to do this. it could still take many days and carries risks. then we come back to the question,

what is the purpose of the strike? it was to write down the syrian ability to use chemical weapons against their population. they are not going to do that in one night. we must expect the us led coalition will come back again. when they do, they will want to reduce the chances of their missiles being struck. the next iteration might mean that more capabilities are used against the russian provided air defence systems, and that is an escalation in itself. but if america has considerable capability, what about its intent? what does president trump, leading a coalition, want to achieve by the strikes? and does he have the political will to see it through, even if things go wrong? i think the bigger question is, what is the political plan for the aftermath? donald trump, as president, about a year ago, did move forward with missile strikes. but any aftermath of that, nothing happened. the signal that assad took away is that you can hunker down, weather the storm, maybe a couple more missiles, but there won't be much more after that.

add to that short range systems at several more at airbases, and ship —based missiles. some have been put to see recently, and russia could create an air defence bubble capable of intercepting missiles and manned aircraft alike. the russians are put in place in and around syria some of the very best air defence capability that is in service in the world today. from a technical perspective, we should be in no doubt that this capability is a significant risk to western aircraft. to overcome it would require a major military effort. the question for the kremlin is also about intent.

looking away, and watching assad's were force compounded, is hardly good for the regional image. if they activate their air defence system, it could have a dramatic affect blunting the coalition‘s missile blitz. but if russia tries and fails, the effect will be the opposite. big decisions for russia, also. i'm joined by sir mark lyall grant, who was the national security adviser to theresa may until last year, and to david cameron before that. and from washington david frum, the senior editor at the atlantic and former speech writer for george w bush. good evening to you both. what would you have been advising theresa may if you have been on his shoulder today? i would advise that if the military, with a credible military plan... which military? well, obviously it will be the american military primarily, in consultation with us,

the french and maybe some others, if they come up with a credible plan and the americans ask us to participate, we should agree to do so. the reason for that is that is very important redline has been crossed by the use of chemical weapons by assad regime. the united kingdom have a very strong national interest in defending the rules—based international order. we shouldn'tjust rely on the americans to do that. we have a strong interest, as they do. the reality is, although theresa may was coming out of the cabinet today, the discussion was all about a joint enterprise, the truth of the matter is, having signed up, having rubber—stamped in cabinet, theresa may is actually going to be at donald trump's behest. there is nothing that will be measurably altered by the fact she is on the phone call, will there? well, the timing will be decided primarily by the white house, certainly. that is an important point. the timing is quite a tricky operation. clearly you want to plan very carefully. you want to make sure this

is a targeted operation and that civilians are not going to be suffering as a result of this attack. you don't want to give the russians an excuse for escalation. on the other hand, the longer the planning takes, the more the syrian regime and the russians will prepare defences. getting that timing right is extremely important, and the decision will be taken primarily by the americans. this was a case in 2013. if parliament had agreed in 2013 that we should join the americans, our participation in it would have been relatively small in terms of numbers, but nonetheless it would have been politically important. david, what do you take from what has happened in cabinet today, that theresa may is essentially having to fall in behind donald trump and he would be the leader in this? this is a man who last week tweeted that he had shiny new missiles, going for you. then he wrote back, saying we don't know when you are going to be had, we don't even know if we will hit you.

what do you make of that, in terms of leadership? is it very clever, is it faux naive? i think theresa may is in the position of every other citizen of every democratic country is, looking to america for leadership at a time when the presidency is radically broken. there isn't a functioning presidency and he can't make proper decisions. that's something we can't blink. where the operation is going... if the planes couldn't fly, if the boats were waterlogged, if soldiers and sailors were agrieved, you'd think hard about launching an operation and so it must be when the command structure is broken. we are treading a path towards very serious confrontation. 200 russian so—called mercenaries killed in a clash with us

forces against syrian militia in february. we are on a path to a larger commitment under the leadership of a president who has questions over his connection to russia, whose legitimacy inside the us is in doubt and whose mental processes and leadership skills, we've all seen what they are. he isn't a leader after whom you'd want to go to war. you can't rely onjim mattis and john bolton, essentially what david from is saying here is that donald trump is taking us into a dangerous place in terms of working out a strategy or what the end point is of this. the end point is pretty limited, we are not trying to change the outcome of the syrian civil war, that is no longer possible unfortunately. had we decided to go ahead in 2013, if parliament had taken a decision to go ahead, if obama had struck then, i personally think that maybe hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved and it

could have affected the dynamic on the ground. but that time has passed, the objective is very limited. we're talking about limited air strikes, missiles and perhaps planes, not ground troops. do you have your fingers crossed with the knowledge that this is being led by donald trump or is it being led by a lot of other people? it is being led by the americans but donald trump won't be doing the planning, let's be honest, it will be the pentagon, the defence department doing the planning and we'll be involved in that. david, it's interesting that this is actually not playing very high in the american press at all but i wonder what would happen if you had a us fighter pilot shot down by a russian fighter pilot, what would happen then? it's not playing very big in aregger at the moment because in the last half an hour the biggest story is the president's attorney taking the fifth amendment

with regard to an actress. it is crucial to understand how decisions will actually be made. that isn't a sideshow to the more important issues of war and peace, it is integral. that is what donald trump is thinking about most of the time, after fulminating at what he sees on television. is this a way of donald trump deflecting, just deflecting? that makes it sound too rational. it's not like he has one problem and comes up with a plan. he has a series of little impulses. his thought processes were compared to fireflies in a jar. they go on and off and you have to take that into account when it comes to deciding which way we're going. i want to ask, in a situation where he used chemical weapons a year ago, he has stockpiles

of chemical weapons and has shown no essentially, what‘sthgpeint who might think, why don't we add chemical weapons to our stock of weapons systems? that would be very damaging. thank you both. with the news that president trump and the prime minister are speaking tonight, action against syria may well be coming, and it seems that the decision, whatever it is, will not be put to parliament. there's little doubt how jeremy corbyn would vote. he would vote against. he said today "more bombing,

more killing, more war will not save life. it will just take more lives and spawn the war elsewhere." so should parliament have its say? here in the studio is catherine west, labour mp and former shadow foreign minister and conservative mpjohnny mercer. good evening. it looks as if you won't have a vote if there's going to be action you'll have to wear it. i don't see why we can't be recalled at the weekend, i could cancel in basements and most mps are back because parliament is sitting on monday. —— cancel engagements. we should be debating this issue this weekend so i'm waiting for the speaker to send me an e—mail so i can be in parliament on saturday and we can discuss this important topic. johnny mercer, the longest serving conservative mp, ken clarke, was perfectly clear that there should be a vote in parliament because cabinet has to be accountable to parliament and if it's inconvenient, too bad, you have to have a vote. it's not a question of convenience, this argument that you must go through parliament to conduct self defence is intellectually bankrupt. if you look at how these are made

and the intelligence going into these decision—making processes, they will never come into the public domain and they never showed. they will go to the intelligence services who produce wings which can never go into the public domain. mps will be debating with half of the information they will look at the information and make decisions based on that and that's how democracy works. chilcot could not have been clearer about the three conditions, firstly that the intelligence must be robust, which in iraq it wasn't, secondly that there must be a plan, there is no plan, and number three, that you must bring the public with you. bringing the public with you surely means debating in parliament and having some transparency about the possible escalation. even someone like emmanuel macron

saying he's sure that at least chlorine was used, do you believe him? i have no doubt that terrible crimes have been committed and that assad must come before the international criminal court ‘s. under what circumstances would you actually back military action then against assad? i think we need to see the evidence and that must be put to members of parliament. johnny mercer says that the security forces know things that they couldn't share with parliamentarians. cabinet could give us a steer on the information that they have. why don't disagree but the prime minister has a duty, when the prime minister is engaged with military operations, to go to parliament and bring the country with her but the fact that you have to lay everything out

contributing to your decision—making cycle, at the risk of making the country less safe by burning assets, is intellectually bankrupt. but right now, what we don't have, and there may be evidence after the phone call tonight, you must be concerned that we don't seem to have to have a strategy, there is no end point or agreement. assad is going to be left in place? is it because you think the opposition is too toxic to back the opposition? you won't get a result, whatever the west does, you aren't going to change the civil war in syria but that's not we're trying to do. as mark pointed out, it's a signal that chemical weapons and very important. a year ago donald trump made a strike, i'd like to know what the government assessment of the efficacy of it was because a year later we are being asked to do the same thing. how can we get beyond this? eight years on and people are suffering, we need to get around the table and talk and not do more bomb dropping which will kill more people.

isn't there a bob loan with a labour party that it always eventually returns to iraq? —— isn't there a problem. jeremy corbyn cannot base his foreign policy on a hangoverfrom iraq. at least with iraq we had a rational partner. if the foreign secretary was going to pick up the phone to his opposite number in america, what do we know about the man who was appointed today? it is chaotic. let's quickly go back to the question of the president of the united states and what david was saying. do you trust someone like the president to have a strategy to do the long—term plan for serie a —— syria and avoid escalation with the russians? donald trump is the post holder and i'm confident there is a security structure, people like jim mattis, who award in aiding this.

i know what you're saying, you think this is a scary situation but that enhances britain's role, it must get in there to temper some of that but also to say that we aren't going to tolerate the use of chemical weapons. thank you forjoining us. in war it is often children who suffer most, but in the conflict in iraq that suffering has gone on after the war has ceased. it's nine months since iraqi forces declared victory in the long and bloody battle to retake mosul from the so—called islamic state. but rebuilding has barely begun in the most devastated parts of the city, hundreds of thousands of people are still displaced — and almost every day the authorities find more children who have lost their parents, or been abandoned, in the chaos of war. for one woman, sukayna muhammed younes, efforts to deal with the plight of these children have been frustratingly slow and so she has taken on the job

of trying to return them to whatever family they have left. tim whewell went to meet her. mosul‘s orphans wake up every day in a city that's still waking from a nightmare. for three long years it was ruled by so—called islamic state. sukayna muhammed ali younes runs two orphanages in mosul. her charges seem to adore her. sukayna doesn'tjust rescue children who are victims of is. she also finds and saves orphans from the other side, children of is fighters. chenat, who is two, maybe one of them. sukayna doesn'tjust rescue children

who are victims of is. she also finds and saves orphans from the other side, children of is fighters. chenat, who is two, may be one of them. she was discovered just days ago, wondering alone in a camp of thousands of displaced people. but there's something else about her appearance that attracted attention. if sukayna is right, chenat could be the child of one of the tens

of thousands of foreign fighters thatjoined is. no one knows what will happen to those children now. some of the foreign jihadis were given houses in the best parts of mosul. they lived as a separate, privileged caste. sukayna's showing me the former homes of fighters from muslim parts of russia, which supplied is with many recruits. a christian house. and even when is was driven from this area, there were real fears that it could return. just look at the bullet holes, every gate completely peppered with bullet holes. the fighting here wasn't just street to street, not even house to house.

it was room to room. it's quite hard, really, to see how this part of town can ever be rebuilt, how life can ever return here. after is was finally driven out of mosul, its fighters retreated west along this road. nine months later, tens of thousands of troops are still deployed here for fear that the jihadis may return, with the support of sympathisers in the sunni population. along this road is sukayna's hometown, tal afar. before is came, it was roughly half sunni, half shia. but her family, one of the most prominent in the town, was a rare mixture of all its communities. but al-anda, which was powerful in this region before the appearance

of is, hated such diversity. they killed two of her brothers. this is riad. both journalists, who worked to build tolerance. after the family fled in 2014, is used their house as a local headquarters. they made bombs here and dug graves in a next—door courtyard before the final iraqi army assault. back in mosul, though, sukayna is still trying to find the family of chenat, who may be an is child. someone may recognise this picture she's posting. some international agencies don't like the way sukayna works, they think showing children's photos in dangers them. sukayna thinks is the only

way to get results. but many don't share her sympathy. she gets threats from those who want revenge on is, but also from remaining is supporters. sukayna isn't easily intimidated. she's sure that she can keep herself and these children safe. but she wants them to leave the orphanage, for their own families. amid the chaos of iraq today, that's work that will take her years. it's a week since a burglary in hither green in london

which resulted in the death of a burglar, henry vincent — killed, apparently, after a screwdriver he was carrying was used on him by the victim of the raid. what has made the death more noteworthy is the row which has raged since, over the placing of flowers at the house of richard osborn—brooks by friends and family of vincent, flowers which then have been pulled down and binned, repeatedly, often in the midst of furious words on both sides resulting in attempts by the police to keep the peace. flowers for the dead. it's a feature of modern life — at the edge of roads where people have died in accidents, the scene of fatal fires, and at the site of atrocities. their presence is hardly ever controversial. but a floral memorial in hither green, in london, has created a febrile atmosphere — which appears only to be intensifying. police have been a regular presence on the street, and the met‘s deputy commissioner even said the row had put

a strain on the force. would you just like to give a message to the people that tore it down? scum. can't leave the flowers. 78—year—old richard osborn—brooks, who confronted henry vincent when he and an accomplice entered the house, was arrested on suspicion of murder, but later released without charge. he and his wife are yet to return to the house they have lived in for decades. but should mourners be free to commemorate vincent's death at the scene where he committed a crime, especially if the victims of that crime may be too intimidated to go back home? joining me now isjournalist anne atkins and in washington dc the editor in chief of breitbart london, raheem kassam. they went through a terrifying ordeal, and they were put through that by henry vincent and one other. the tributes are right outside their door.

do you recognise that can be incredibly upsetting, even offensive? for the family in that house? yes, but i don't think that when you and i are bereaved that we should bejudged on how we react in the first few days of our bereavement. it is an incredibly difficult time. what kind of person do you have to be to tear down a teddy from children who have lost their daddy, saying, "daddy, i love you?" i mean, come on. of course their father should not have been burgling houses. but it is not the children's‘ fault, is it? children's fault, is it? if the couple had died in that raid as well, would you take the same view in tributes to henry vincent outside? i think when you have lost your daddy, you are allowed to leave a teddy and some flowers, some balloons at the place where he died. come on. is that your view, that for a child, losing a father, it is incredibly

traumatic and, actually, if it helps them with the acknowledgement of what has happened, to leave flowers outside the house that he burgled, what is the harm in that? i think there is harm, there is farm in several aspects of this. when you look at it, you look and see the word offence used in the introduction, i don't think we should be judging these things in terms of offence caused or taken by anybody. you look at public polling on this, 82% say it should not be allowed to happen. but i don't think that is how we should be judging something like this. your other guest asked the question what kind of person would tear down flowers, teddy bears, left for the commemoration of a burglar's life who tried to, who did invade and infringe upon the rights of somebody else. i'll tell you what kind of person, i would, a lot of the other people that were in that 82% would.

it comes down to a basic concept of morality. this is not a road traffic accident that occurred, it is not a terrorist attack, we are not grieving the life of somebody that was an innocent bystander. if the family want to grieve the loss of their loved one, and i can understand that it was a loved one, they should do so somewhere else, not someone where it can be seen to be taunting, or even an intimidation tactic against the would have been victims of this midnight home invasion. indeed, the family have not returned home yet. we don't know if they are too scared to return, they certainly haven't returned to the home where they were attached for decades? of course, and if there is a case of intimidation it is a separate matter and it should not be allowed, it is against the law to intimidate people. but that is not part of leaving flowers. leaving flowers at the place

where somebody has died is not an act of intimidation. that is not how it is normally interpreted. interestingly enough, by pure coincidence, my daughter, my son and son—in—law, they live two three streets away from this happened. my daughter encountered a violent burglar and has been through this. i have been mugged, it is a scary thing to happen, but it is not in the same league as growing up without your father. hang on, the violence done to the husband... nobody is condoning that. a burglar with a screwdriver, he could have very seriously hurt, the intent was not to knock on the door and say, could i have a couple of quid? that's as may be, but the children have still been deprived of their father. they have to grow up for the next 20 years without their father. that is a terrible thing. for goodness‘ sake, a few flowers! ? if the children feel that is the place they want to remember theirfather, the place where he fell, that is a legitimate

desire, is it not? well, i think it is a legitimate desire, but we don't all act on our desires. we take into account other people's considerations, we live in a community. we don't live in isolation, trying to fulfil all of our most basic desires. i might be controversial in saying this as well, but the bereavement of a father who may have taught their children criminality is something we need to assess as well. perhaps these children would be better off not having a criminal father around, teaching them the tools of the trade? and for the police to try to be enforcing the fact that these people can lay flowers out there, i think that is... that is really disgusting, i'm sorry... it is the enforcement of morality, the enforcement of depravity and enforcement of commonality. to say the children are better off without their father, it is a disgusting thing to say. you don't know, do you know them? that's all for tonight. but before we go, on sunday,

london's southbank centre are presenting a special reading of chinua achebe's things fall apart at queen elizabeth hall to celebrate its 60th anniversary. since the book was published in 1958, it has sold over 12 million copies in more than 50 languages. lucian msamati is live in the studio to read from the novel. emily is here tomorrow. goodnight. "it is already too late," said obierika sadly. "our own men and our sons have joined the ranks of the stranger. they havejoined his religion and they help to uphold his government. if we should try to drive out the white men in umuofia we should find it easy. there are only two of them. but what of our own people who are following their way and have been given power? they would go to umuru and bring the soldiers, and we would be like abame." he paused for a long time and then said, "i told you on my last visit to mbanta how they hanged aneto."

"what has happened to that piece of land in dispute?" asked okonkwo. "the white man's court has decided that it should belong to nnama's family, who had given much money to the white man's messengers and interpreter." "does the white man understand our custom about land ? " "how can he when he does not even speak our tongue? but he says that our customs are bad, and our own brothers who have taken up his religion also say that our customs are bad. how do you think we can fight when our own brothers have turned against us? the white man is very clever. he came quietly and peaceably with his religion. we were amused at his foolishness and allowed him to stay. now he has won our brothers, and our clan can no longer act like one.

he has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart." well, thursday was a very disappointing day across the uk. five degrees would you believe only recorded and that... five degrees only recorded in sheffield and barely more than that on the north sea coast, so really, really unpleasant day so let's see what the weather is doing for the rest of the night. outbreaks of rain mostly across eastern areas here and there but for the majority of us it's a

relatively dry night. a little damp in places with some mist and murk around, very murky around luton airport, stansted, around, very murky around luton airport, sta nsted, those around, very murky around luton airport, stansted, those sorts of areas in the last 12 hours or so. as far as tomorrow morning is concerned, lots of cloud around again, some dampness, you can see the north—west, western scotland and the north—west, western scotland and the chances are the clouds in the south will also be thinning through the morning. might take a while but the morning. might take a while but the clouds may break up as far north as the midlands, so here should feel fairly pleasant second half of the day, 13 or 1a, not spectacular, better than what's coming our way because during the weekend things will warm up and feeling the warmth in the south first. feeling quite breezy and we're expecting some showers to form, not a completely dry weekend on the way, you might need your brolly at one point or another. stat they might start cloudy for some and then the sun comes out, the winds coming from the south, the temperature is rising and

a huge difference on the north sea coast, 1a in newcastle and 15 in hull and showers in the south on saturday. into sunday this low pressure swings in and it will draw in the warmth from the south across the country, but out west u nfortu nately we the country, but out west unfortunately we will pay for it with cloud and outbreaks of rain and windy conditions, maybe gale force windy conditions, maybe gale force wind coastal areas, but the east should be just about dry and again some good need our brolly is almost anywhere, but probably not for long. as we head into next week, especially the middle of next week, he'd drawn in from the south. temperatures across southern and central parts of the uk could hit the mid— twenties. this is the first that at what we could see. i suspect even higher than 22 in london, cardiff, around 20 or more, but edinburgh could be pushing 20. that's the latest from the. have a good night. —— that's the latest

from the. —— from me. welcome to newsday on the bbc. our headlines this morning: tensions are mounting about possible us military action in syria. jets and warships are moved into place, but president trump adopts a less bullish tone. we're looking very, very seriously, very closely, at that whole situation. and we'll see what happens, folks, we'll see what happens. mike pompeo faces a grilling by us senators at his confirmation hearing. president trump's choice to be secretary of state denies he is a war hawk. i'm kasia madera in london. also in the programme: the chinese baby that has been born despite its biological parents dying in a car crash four years ago.