russia accuses the uk of staging the chemical attack on douma. can the un security council serve any purpose when a permanent member leads a propaganda war? we talk to jeremy corbyn‘s spokesman. nobody is suggesting that there are easy answers. all i say, let us take a moment to consider the options and let us notjoin in some sort of rush to conflict without even having a parliamentary vote beforehand, which seems to be what the prime minister is likely to do. russia is not the only country still backing bashar al—assad. iran is still on the same side. we ask what the iranian ambassador thinks. in this country in 15 or 20 years‘ time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man. and 50 years on, the bbc plans to broadcast enoch powell's rivers of blood speech. good evening.

do not adjust your sets. the chemical attack on innocent civilians in syria, was — russian officials told us today — staged by the british. the statement would be laughable were it not a stark reminder that — with or without air attacks — the war is already being fought. russia has blocked the un from investigating the use of chemical weapons in the country further. a choice made, we must presume, to prevent other nations taking further action against bashar al—assad. tonight, the un secretary general, antonio guterres, said the cold war was back with a vengeance. so how should all of this affect what britain's government does next? and where does it leave the opposition? here's david grossman. it's a week now since the headlines started pointing towards more western military involvement

in the syrian conflict, a week since the alleged chemical weapons attack on the syrian town of douma. during that time, the diplomatic temperature has ranged from freezing hostility to fiery barbs, not least from the us president. we are still no clearer to knowing what is going to be done. in the un security council today, there was what amounts to a holding pattern from america and its allies. our president has not yet made a decision about possible actions in syria. but should the united states and our allies decided to act in syria, it will be in defence of a principle on which we all agree. the british cabinet is agreed on the need to take action to alleviate humanitarian distress and to deter the further use of chemical weapons by the assad regime and we will continue to work with our friends and allies to coordinate an international response.

there is, though, wariness about where all this might lead. this stop the war coalition protest in london this afternoon was missing one of its founder members. jeremy corbyn only stood down as chair of the organisation after he became labour leader. interviewers struggled to find any circumstances in which he would support military action in syria. the danger at the moment is, if we go in with targeted or massive bombardment, further civilians will die, further chaos will be caused and the war will escalate still further. are there circumstances... 7 this is a time, surely, when we have to use all of the authority we have to prevent the continuation and escalation of the war. are there circumstances in which you would back military action in syria? well, let's cross that bridge when we get there. mr corbyn says he wants a un investigation into what happened in syria. however, russia has vetoed similar investigations on six occasions. in labour's case, in relation

to syria, it's quite clear that people hate the idea of children being gassed with chemical weapons. many people hate even more the idea of going to war and intervening in the middle east with military force. so rather than resolve that horrible dilemma, they indulge in the pretence that there is a diplomatic solution. however, according to the latest polling, the labour position doesn't seem that far from where the british people are on the issue of syria right now. when presented with the statement, there probably was an attack using chemical weapons carried out by syrian government forces or their allies, 61% agreed. only 5% thought the claims were fabricated. another 5% thought something else happened and 29% didn't know. but what to do about it? the public are pretty clear

what they don't want. just 22% supported launching cruise missiles on syrian military targets. almost double, 43%, opposed this course of action. 34% didn't know. that too is where many conservative mps are. clear about syrian culpability, but wary of being bounced into military action behind a capricious, even unstable american president. my worry is, we're having this something must be done moment without thinking of what the long—term goal is. there is a very strong ethical case for bombing, because what's happening there is disgusting and repugnant, but the strategic and practical case for the bombing have unfortunately significantly declined because of the change of circumstances in the last five years. and because of the threat of great

power confrontation. the diplomatic heat shows no sign of dissipating. and sooner rather than later, the west must decide what to do. every option, including doing nothing, carries political and military risk. well earlier i spoke to labour shadow minister nick thomas—symonds. i asked him what the right action should be. i look at the situation in syria that's been going on now for seven years. i cannot see at the moment how military action — in the form of whether it's going to be the firing of missiles or bombing is — going to assist in what is already a very complex situation on the ground. for me, now is the time to redouble our efforts to find a peaceful solution in this matter. but let me say too that the use of chemical weapons is absolutely abhorrent those that use them clearly need to be brought to account. by saying no military intervention, your position basically is saying no action?

no. the only action available in a situation like this isn't only bombing, with respect. what is it then? firstly, i think we have to build the evidence in respect of the use of chemical weapons itself. and it would obviously be for the government to be supporting the resolution that will be before the united nations with respect to an independent investigation. even though that's been blocked by russia ? let me just deal with that, emily, if i may, because actually back in 2015, there was an investigation that was by the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons, together with the nnited nations. now, russia did veto that continuing on the basis of its remit and its evidence. but i'm not saying for a moment that it isn't challenging and i totally accept that.

but let's see now what can be done with cool heads to try and push forward that idea of an independent investigation, together with the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons and let's build the evidence and build a wide international coalition to try and find a resolution to this terrible conflict. do you not think the last seven years people haven't been talk about finding diplomatic and political solutions? of course they have. if you don't want military intervention, you're absolutely within your right to say, no action, we don't think it is right to take any action. so, don't pretend you have a political solution to this. i don't pretend anything, emily, all i say is this, yes, of course there have been attempts to find solutions over the last seven years. absolutely there have. nobody is suggesting that there are easy answers. all i say is let us take a moment to consider the options and let us not be drawn into some rush into conflict without even having a parliamentary vote

beforehand, which seems to be what the prime minister is likely to do. when you hear, for example, russia saying that the attack last saturday was was staged by britain, does that sound like a power that you can sit down and do business with? well, obviously, that kind of comment isn't helpful obviously. do you think they have credibility? i see no particular credibility in that comment, in that conclusion. if as we go down the road, we will have the opcb, for example, in tomorrow. if they draw firm conclusions, that gives us an even better way to go and to show that that kind of comment doesn't have any credibility. if they show that has no credibility, does that change your mind in terms of what action you take? can you cut russia out of the equation completely? well, we face the reality of russia being a permanent member of the security council and therefore we have had to still deal with russia and deal in that way and keep up a robust dialogue, which is

absolutely essential. do you believe that reality should change now? russia should be kicked off the security council? it isn't going to change now, emily, it really isn't. this is the situation that we face and we face and there is no point in talking about hypotheticals that could happen ten or 20 years down the line. this is the situation that we face now. but you might say it is just as hypothetical to expect russia to be able to change its mind, because britain's labour party thinks it should come to the table and think about things cool—headedly. well, with respect, that isn't hypothetical, that is an indication of the efforts a labour government would make if it was in power and efforts that could be made now and should be made now to try to make it absolutely clear that we want to find an end to this terrible conflict in syria. nick thomas—symonds, thank you. the debate about whether and how the west should intervene in the syrian conflict is complicated by the sheer number of players involved in the seven—year war. assad initially lost control of huge swathes of the country to competing rebel groups and isis, but has been able to regain

territory and shore up his position thanks to support from russia, iran and hezbollah — the lebanese militia. backing the rebels in syria have been amongst others saudi arabia and and israel. the complicated alliances have turned syria into a proxy war — raising the stakes for the prospect of intervention by washington, paris and london. but let's concentrate now on one of assad's key backers — iran. it has backed him with intelligence, weapons and troops. it's believed more than 1,000 iranian soldiers have been killed during the conflict. tehran says its involvement is to battle sunni extremism in syria. critics believe it hopes to cement its status as regional power. amid all of this are new questions about the 2015 nuclear deal, which president trump has repeatedly criticised. well, hamid baeidinejad is iranian ambassador to the uk and hejoins me now. with regard to the chemical attack in douma, the fremplg french proof says there is proof it was a chemical attack and it was by bashar al—assad. you have condemned these attacks before, will you do so now? as you know, we have been a victim of chemical weapons with use against military

personnel and our people. so we are serious about the use of chemical weapons and this is an action that could be condemned by all countries across the globe. you would condemn assad? everybody who would use it should be condemned. including bashar al—assad? everybody, exactly. as you know, it has taken decades to reach to an agreement on banning chemical weapons within a chemical weapons convention. so we hope that this mechanism could work. where does your relationship with assad stand if you say this is a very bad action. you can't stand should er

to shoulder with bashar al—assad can you ? you know bashar al—assad is the only legitimate government of syria. and we have been involved with syrian situation just to fight the terrorism and at the invitation of legitimate government to fight seriously the terrorist on the ground. it is a question of asking a legitimate government for fighting terrorism, which we all share. how can he be hej it mate if he is gases people. because he is a member of the un and the syrian theatre is very complex. how can he be legitimate if he gasses his own people? because he is a member of the un and the syrian theatre is very complex.

there are different actors, non—state actors. do you feel conflicted? sir, you know how strongly you feel about chemical weapons. do you feel conflicted standing side by side with assad? that's the question, now we see some countries claiming that chemical weapons have been used but the question is, there is no information on the ground to prove that. so first, we want to establish proof, and we are happy that in fact inspectors from the opcw are on their way and based on the news, they will be tomorrow on the ground. to put it in context, we know that in 2013 he did use chemical weapons against his own people, that has been irrefutably proved by many external organisations including the un. russia, tonight, has

claimed that britain staged these chemical attacks. now, russia is also your ally. do you understand why russia would say something like that? the question is that we should establish the reality is based on the facts. but the facts are what anyone chooses to believe. or any state offers up as propaganda. absolutely, that's because we've established a convention, a multilateral one, to establish the facts on the ground and then there is a mechanism for collective, multilateral action against the use of chemical weapons. let's turn to where we are now. it seems possibly as if over the course of the weekend, even tomorrow night, there could be era tax, there could be air attacks, military intervention by possibly the us and maybe

britain against syria. what is iran's response? any attack against syria in these circumstances, when we do not see any proof on the ground by legitimate organisations, the opcw, is against international law. we must be clear about that. and what do you do? we hope that they exercise soft restraint, to enable the inspectors to establish the facts, and to see whether chemical weapons have been used or not, and then you'd have collective action, all of us. do you think the situation has changed? iran claims that israel targeted syria, killing the revolution are regarded. has that changed the picture for you, whether it's true or not? as i said, we are in syria at the invitation of the government to fight against terrorism. there is no doubt that there are terrorist organisations and terrorist groups in syria, which all countries have the commitment to fight against them and we are very happy

that we have the solidarity with a number of countries that we are unable to fight isis and we hope that the consolidation of that solidarity, we could fight against other terrorist groups. there'd be ask you to step back because i know you were a very let me ask you to step back because i know you were a very important part of the iran us deal. do you recognise the us as your friend? is president trump someone you can work with? president trump has been very hostile to our nation and our government. he has called us a terrorist nation. is he an enemy? is that the reality on the ground. from day one trump tried to use very

harsh words against iran and the iranian government on the nuclear deal, which was the product of intensive negotiations between iran and other countries. ambassador, before you go, nazarenes arai radcliffe has been in prison in your jails for two years. when will she returned home? we are doing our best to talk to ourjudiciary and see what we can do for her to use some of the provisions on humanitarian grounds to help her to return. ——nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe. we hoped that could be before christmas but now we are in april.

what's holding it up and when will she get out? judicial processes are complicated and we have started quite pensive dialogue with the judiciary to see what they can do, ——intensive because that is the decision of the judiciary. to make a proper decision to use legal and humanitarian grounds to help her. is it your sense that it could be within weeks? i cannot give you the date. we will try our best. thank you forjoining us. this month marks 50 years since enoch powell delivered a 45—minute speech to local conservatives which was to prove one of the most incendiary a modern british politician has ever made. indeed, it ended his political career. this weekend, the bbc will air that speech — with comment and annotation — the first time it has been broadcast in full.

the move has been called divisive — and the bbc accused of fuelling hate rhetoric. should it be held up as a moment of history — however wrong — so that future generations can judge for themselves? or does a speech, both ugly and largely incorrect, hold no value? we must be mad, literally mad, as a nation, to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents... the speech, made to the west midlands area conservative political centre, was notionally to oppose the labour government's race relations act, which wanted to outlaw discrimination in the delivery of housing, employment and public services. but the conservative shadow defence secretary used the address to rail against what he called the "preventable evil" of migration from commonwealth nations to the united kingdom. it was, he declared... it is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

his background in the classics gave him the virgil quote, the most remembered line of the entire speech. and his prophecy that... in this country, in 15 or 20 years' time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man. ..was aimed at embodying the voice of the populist. it worked. powell was sacked from the opposition front bench but he had no shortage of working—class support springing to his defence. a gallup poll of 1968 found that 74% of respondents agreed with the speech's sentiments. dockers from east london, butchers from smithfield market, marched to protest that he had been victimised. protests that, some suggest, work overtly facilitated by fascist were covertly facilitated by fascist

activists and by extreme right—wing groups. the speech has earned itself a place as one of the most unedifying ever uttered by mainstream british politician — but make no mistake, the rhetoric of demographic apocalypse, the anxiety of the other, the unknown, is perhaps as present today as it was then. well, the bbc issued a statement about the controversy earlier — a spokesman said the radio 4 programme archive on four will be a rigorous journalistic analysis of a historical political speech, adding that it's not an endorsement of the controversial views and that people should wait to hear the programme before theyjudge it. joining us now, stephen bush, new statesman journalist. and katherine birbalsingh, head teacher of the michaela — community school in north london. community school in north london. we haven't heard what the programme is so it is nice for you to enter this debate. what is your sense of why it's important to hear the speech? i am a headmistress so i believe

in the importance of history and i believe we are on a journey in this country with a regard to race relations. in 1968 it would have been impossible once that two black britons could have been on newsnight discussing issues and i think it's wonderful that we are in that position today. we are on a journey to the promised land and it's important for us to be able to analyse our history, however painful it might be, to make thatjourney. what's interesting is that even when he made the speech it was knocked down immediately, he lost hisjob and wasn't allowed to remain a politician. is it gratifying to look back and say that we weren't that different as a country then? it is a journey but even then

it was considered completely off the charts. i think that's precisely why it's a mistake to get a bit too much attention to the speech by enoch powell. he would never have predicted the idea that you could have a panel, he thought that the diversity we have now would inevitably lead to a race war and in some ways the tragedy of enoch powell is that this is the least significant speech in terms of our development as a country that he made. his speeches about sovereignty and eu membership are perhaps more enduring, and in a strange way this odd burp in our political history doesn't deserve to be given the attention it will receive by being given this slot on radio 4, and the kind of emboldening of certain sentiments. do you accept that maybe we bestow on it a grandiosity because of the classical allusions and the fact that the rhetoric is so familiar?

we almost elevate it. i don't know about elevating it, it was a very decisive speech, it was a very divisive speech, it got a lot of attention at the time. he was very wrong in his predictions and i think the fact that he got it so wrong ought to be celebrated, that we have come so far in these 50 years. he thought that race relations couldn't be, as you were saying, stephen, that what we've got nowadays would never happen. i'm wondering why, to bring in stephen, why you feel so strongly that it's not worth covering? things we object to horrifically now, slavery, the holocaust, are still commemmorated with a history month or a museum. we don't need to erase them from the past. there is commemmorating it and repeating it on a national broadcaster.

a good thing about british broadcasting is that you are committed to be balanced, which is great if you are debating who is going to be prime minister but i don't think it is as useful about whether chlorinated chicken is safe to eat. when not presumably debating whether racism is good or bad tomorrow, we aren't doing a binary debate about something... that may not be the debate happening in this hour on the bbc, about but i have been asked to talk on other broadcasters about whether it is hate speech. it is unquestionably hate speech. one thing he celebrates in the speech is a landlady who has made a great deal of money renting out her seven rooms but she refuses to do so to black people and he holds her up as some

kind of victim. if you don't want to rent out your room and you are going bankrupt, that's your fault. it was clear he was a racist, but to no platform his speech and his history, we endanger ourfuture. it's really important that we take things apart. they are notjust playing the speech, they are going to discuss it and analyse it and debate it. presumably if michaela had children at her school had children saying "who was enoch powell, what about the rivers of blood," you would find that almost offensive, wouldn't you ? wouldn't you find it weird not to know about it? i don't think is necessary, i think one problem we have as a country is this need to continually beat our backs over this awful past we have. we are the country in the west of europe who are most relaxed with interracial marriage. we should be proud of our present...

you can do both. by not talking about things, though, it says something about where your country is now. he thought we couldn't do this, he thought britain would never be a position where could listen to a speech like this and discuss it and dissect it. he thought the british people, on hearing something like this, would be rioting in the speech but this isn't the case in 2018, we can talk about it and celebrate and we can look at the details of the speech and analyse and learn from it. without our history and our history is everything for the future and yeah, ijust think it's really important that we can discuss it. we've run out of time. thank you forjoining us. that's it for tonight. mary beard is here next with front row. before we leave you — tomorrow, three women jockeys will ride in the grand national for the first time in 30 years. some say it's the first time ever that a woman is in with a real chance of winning the

famous steeplechase. but femalejockeys remain rare — you may even say they're an endangered species. which brought to mind this sketch from the classic sketch show big train from 1998. i'll be back on monday. goodnight. because they prefer the weeds of the plane, thejockeys spend long periods in the open, risking attack from hunters, like the artist formerly known as prince. after feasting greedily on the carcass, the artist will sleep. it will be two days before he hunts again.

welcomes a sportday. i'm hugh ferris. the headlines: it is a bit 1984. liverpool meet aroma in the champions league semifinals, a rematch of their famous final and the european cup 34 years ago. gold at last for england's katarina johnson—thompson, claiming the heptathlon title at the commonwealth games. and after a soggy ladies day out aintree, will tomorrow be the day for a lady? three female jockeys in the grand national.