this is bbc news. i'm ben brown. the headlines at ten. " locked and loaded". america tells syria it's ready to strike again after yesterdays attacks on suspected chemical weapons facilities. labour leader, jeremy corbyn, has called for a vote in parliament tomorrow, following yesterday's air strikes. the chief executive of the world's largest advertising agency, martin sorrell, is stepping down. five people have been treated by paramedics after a car collided with a group of pedestrians in essex. also coming up — drama at the commonwealth games. scotland's callum hawkins was taken away in an ambulance after collapsing just over one mile from the end of the marathon. jubilation in the netball as england beat australia to secure the greatest result in their history and win their first commonwealth games gold medal. and at 10.30am newsbeat speaks to people who lose their hair at a young age. good morning and welcome to bbc news.

donald trump has warned the syrian government the us is "locked and loaded" and prepared to strike again if there are any further chemical weapons attacks in the country. britain, france and the united states have called on the un to hold an independent investigation into last week's suspected chemical attack in douma. but that would need the support of russia, which has condemned saturday's air strikes as an ‘aggression‘. here, the foreign secretary boris johnson has told the bbc the action was "essential". the labour leader, jeremy corbyn, meanwhile, has called for a commons vote tomorrow. more on the uk political reaction in a moment, but first our correspondent chris buckler reports from washington. the british, french and american forces were deployed to send

a message to president asaad, and there was no way they wouldn't a message to president assad, and there was no way they wouldn't have noticed in damascus. one hour of strikes and explosions were, despite the sights and sounds, limited in their scope and very deliberate in their targeting of facilities connected to chemical weapons. the united states and our allies will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against innocent men, women and children. and we are prepared to deter any further use. this was one of the sites where the missiles landed. the syrian government says this building in damascus was home to science labs and training facilities. the western allies claim it was a place where technology for chemical and biological warfare was being developed. after the alleged attack in douma, there are still concerns about chemical weapons, and that means there is still a threat of further action. the united states is locked and loaded. straight talking has

replaced diplomatic language at the un security council. here, there are proposals for a new resolution that would call for a full investigation into the alleged attacks. butjudging by recent clashes, that is likely to be vetoed by syria's ally russia. theresa may has now published her government's legal case this is how you want international affairs to be conducted? this is hooliganism. we are talking about major nuclear powers. theresa may has now published her government's legal case for approving the air strikes but she knows she will face questions at westminster this week about why parliament was not given a say. trump says "more war". we say "no more!"

after the briefest of bombing campaigns, some are asking what has been achieved by these air strikes and whether the west really has a strategy for syria. chris buckler, bbc news, washington. our correspondent lina sinjab is in beirut and she's been telling me what's known about the impact of the air strikes in syria. well, they definitely did the damage for the use of chemical weapons. they have sent a strong message to the government of president bashar al—assad not to use prohibited weapons in syria any more, but did it affect the course of the war of the position of the president? definitely not. this is a warning for the president and other persons not to use chemical weapons, but it says nothing about using other conventional weapons and we have

seen over the last seven years the highest number and the vast majority of civilians killed, reaching around 500,000 in the last seven years. they were killed with conventional weapons, not chemical weapons. they were killed with conventional weapons, not chemicalweapons. so for the course of the war and peace in syria, they are not making any difference, but for the security of using chemical weapons, yes, they are sending a strong message to the government. we saw the pictures yesterday appearing to show president assad going to work as normal and the message from the syrian regime seems to be business as usual. well, yes, that is definitely the case. you watch what they are forecasting the messages they are forecasting the messages they are forecasting the messages they are sending and you talk to people on the ground, it's a message of defiance. it is a message to tell the aggression as they call it that we are here to stay. at the end of the day, it is only three sides according to the americans that were

targeted. —— three sites. these military power is still up and running, he still has the support from russia and iran and he is still going to win the war. he had full control of douma yesterday, the area that witnessed the chemical attack last week, so nothing has changed for him, only the use of chemical weapons. , for him, only the use of chemical weapons., but we are not sure if he will commit to it in the future. our political correspondent mark lobel is here. we have been hearing this morning from the foreign secretary. yes, more uk political reaction. the foreign secretary was talking to andrew mark and he says that it is a message to say enough is enough. he was asked if the uk was locked and loaded as they are in america for another attack. he said he hoped it would be enough of a deterrent not

happen again, but leaving the door open if there was another chemical attack. but he made one point about the wider war in syria. it is important to understand the limits of what we are trying to do. try to end the war? that's right. this is not going to, and we must be honest, it won't turn the tide of the conflict in syria. one can hope it encourages the russians to get assad to be negotiating table in geneva to get a political process properly going, but that is, as it were, an extra. the primary purpose is to say no to the use of barbaric chemical weapons. he is to say no to the use of barbaric chemicalweapons. he was is to say no to the use of barbaric chemical weapons. he was talking about conversations that took place before the air strikes so that nothing was escalated on that point.

communications with the russians is not good, especially over the chemical poisoning of these skripals in salisbury. the russians are still denied any involvement. you did get the sense he was holding it back. labour have been talking about this, particularlyjeremy corbyn, the leader. what has he said? he was asked a lot about the strikes, but one interesting line that came out from a question from andrew mark, if you bear in mind he was chairman of stop the warfor a you bear in mind he was chairman of stop the war for a long time and he is seen as a pacifist, he was asked directly if he would never say never on military action. if you were prime minister you would never. . . if you were prime minister you would never... there has to be an

objective where we want to bring about peace, bring about the political solution. there is going to be no military winner in syria. the war could go on and get worse and the killing will get worse. he continued to air his opinion. he was asked where he thought the legal basis for a strike would come from and this is what he had to say. basis for a strike would come from and this is what he had to saylj was so and this is what he had to saylj was so to the foreign secretary and the prime minister, where is the legal basis for this? humanitarian, they say. it would have to be self defence of the authority of the un security council. the humanitarian aspect is legally debatable and i would have thought from the point of recalling parliament awaiting two days, things could have been

different, but it looked awfully to me as if the prime minister was more interested in following donald trump is matt lead than anything else. this is policy made up by the twitter. so clearly suggesting that theresa may is being led by donald trump. so what about the statement that the prime minister will give tomorrow? gerry mccolgan says that parliament should have been recalled and there should be a vote for whatever happens next. he wants a un resolution to bring russia and america closer together and he mentioned a war power at that should be brought in to hold the government's account for their actions in these types of strikes. ——jeremy actions in these types of strikes. —— jeremy corbyn. here, the labour leader, jeremy corbyn, has questioned

the legality of yesterday's strikes and mps from several parties have said there should have been a vote in parliament first. but the labour mp, john woodcock, believes action against the syrian government was necessary. i hope as many mps as possible will not primarily focus on what our diversionary questions on this. yes it is important that the prime minister explains why she chose to ta ke minister explains why she chose to take action without the formal vote in parliament, but i think the country could have ended up in a much weaker position for many years going forward. of course, parliament in normal circumstances should be endorsing action, but what i was about to say was that there does need to be in the system the ability for a prime minister to agree to action when it is simply not practical to get a parliamentary vote within the timescale needed for a decision. so the prime minister will have to explain why she thought that was the case to mps and i don't

think we should all out a vote further down the track if this is an ongoing operation, but i do hope that the main focus tomorrow can be on what will now be the wider strategy to try to bring this horrible conflict into a better position and have we generally effectively degraded and deterred this horrible chemical weapons use. with me now is sir mark lyall grant, who was the uk‘s ambassador to the united nations in 2013 when the commons voted against military action in syria. he went on to serve as the uk's national security adviser. thank you for being with us. do you think the commons should have had a vote on this? i don't think you will find many security officials or experts like myself who will be disappointed that the prime minister has decided to go ahead with military action without seeking prior authorisation from parliament

because frankly, this convention is a very recent convention and is a constraint that many of our allies, including france and the united states, don't face. the reality is that the situation in crises like these move quickly and decisions need to be made quickly and it's very rare that all the information available to the government when coming toa available to the government when coming to a decision will be able to be put into the public domain. so i think parliament certainly should hold the government to account for its executive decisions, but i do think parliament is the right body to ta ke think parliament is the right body to take those executive decisions that naturally fall to the prime minister and her cabinet. . the prime minister under pressure because france also wanted to carry out military intervention and he is close with the united states. the

united states was supported over the poisoning of these skripals, but there is a wider point here that is more significant and that is that the rules —based international order is important for countries like the united kingdom. more important arguably for us than france and other european countries than the united states. we rely on that for oui’ united states. we rely on that for our prosperity and security. it's right that we should participate in defence of that order and using chemical weapons is a direct violation of that international order, so it's right that the british government should play a role in defending it. are these missile strikes too late? it's been said that there were 50 chemical weapon strikes at least in syria, maybe 200. this is a response to one. what really is the point? it is

important to draw a line in the sand on this. this was a particularly egregious chemical attack. there is clear evidence it was the assad regime so it was right to respond, but you are right, this will not change the dynamic on the ground. it will not change the outcome of the syrian war and that's what i was disappointed in 2013 when parliament did vote against military action because don't forget, that was two yea rs before because don't forget, that was two years before russia entered the conflict at all and military strikes then might have fundamentally changed the dynamic on the ground. so in changed the dynamic on the ground. soina changed the dynamic on the ground. so in a way, that was the time? that was a time and it could have saved hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in syria. that is not the case now and this was a limited objective, which was a focus on chemical weapons only. people will say why this response on chemical weapons because assad has been doing

allsorts of horrific things to civilians in terms of conventional weapons for years, killing as you said, hundreds of thousands. use of chemical weapons is a strong international to blue. they have not been used in widespread terms since the first world war, but they were used in the second world war and in the iran— iraq war and used in the second world war and in the iran— iraq warand in used in the second world war and in the iran— iraq war and in smaller cases in syria, but given that every country practically in the world has signed up to be chemical weapons convention, it's an unpleasant way of killing people and i think it is right that we should in force that international to be that everyone has agreed to. especially after salisbury. as their in connection there, which the prime minister has made? toxic agents were used in both cases, one was a targeted assassination attempt, the other was to terrorise the population. this

does not mean that we should do nothing about the civil war, but we have to be modest because we as the united kingdom, and indeed we as the west, a re united kingdom, and indeed we as the west, are not the key players in the syrian war. the assad regime, russia and turkey have more skin in the game and it is more difficult for us to influence the outcome. but donald trump said that the us is locked and loaded for more attacks, which presumably theresa may would have to follow, if she follows her own logic that if he attacks again, britain will follow. we need to keep the pressure on the assad regime and russia. a new draft resolution has been put down... but russia just veto is everything. they will certainly do that, but we can be ready, ready to strike again if

chemical weapons are used again. we hope that will not be the case, but if it is, we should be ready to respond and we should continue our humanitarian effort. there are 4 million refugees in the surrounding regions and we are doing a lot to help relieve the suffering of civilians. that is a role that the united kingdom can play. good to talk to you, thank you for your time. the headlines on bbc news: locked and loaded, america tells syria it is ready to strike again after yesterday's attacks on suspected chemical weapons facilities. the labour leader has called for a vote in parliament. and in other

news, sir martin sorrell steps down from wpp. sport now. let's get a full round up from the bbc sport centre. it has been a record—breaking history morning. you missed england's li—team the australia to win the commonwealth title. never before had england reached a commonwealth games netball final. never before have they won any more than a bronze. but, with another last—gasp basket, england's roses blossomed at the buzzer. commentator: england have done it! they have made history! they have snatched the gold medal from australia! the greatest result in their history, a win to rewrite the records. it's my dream come true. the girls worked so hard over the last international phase. they put in there. they're against the world number one who, you know, they're renowned, we've not beaten once in the whole cycle i've been in, and to beat them at that time was just stupendous.

and i think the preparation yesterday really put us up for them tight games and, yeah, i'm just so really proud, i'm really, really proud. they say teamwork makes the dream work, and so it proved for husband—and—wife combination of chris and gabby adcock, the defending champions smashing their way to gold in the mixed badminton, beating team—mates marcus ellis and lauren smith. marathons are gruelling at the best of times, but these are the toughest of conditions. scotland's callum hawkins leading with only a mile to go, cruelly collapsing with exhaustion. the medical staff making a much—needed intervention in the near 30—degree temperatures. robbie simpson battled to bronze in the gruelling temperatures. countryman ross hawkins was able to medal. he battled through to bronze in the searing heat. the gold coast may be more than 10,000 miles away, but it has been a commonwealth games brimming with british success. james burford, bbc news. this is how the final table looks.

daniel riccardo won an event for grand prix. lewis hamilton finish fourth, but has closed in on sebastien battle after he was caught up sebastien battle after he was caught up in the late accident. on occasions even the most predictable sports can be unpredictable no one expected to see ricciardo win the chinese grand prix. the moment that shook up the shanghai international circuit came on the 30th lap. the toro rosso cars tangled, the safety car came

toro rosso cars tangled, the safety carcame in and toro rosso cars tangled, the safety car came in and the red bull rumack came in the first prize. when the action resumes, ricciardo rocketed up action resumes, ricciardo rocketed up the field, he's red bull charging from sixth to first. whilst his fight was clean, his team—mate max verstappen was penalised. but. two from pole and could only finish eighth. hamilton finished fourth. things have been thrown wide open, thanks to red bull. and that's all your sports for now. back now to our top story — the air strikes in syria. let's cross to glasgow and speak to scotland's first minister nicola sturgeon. thank you for being with us. what is your view on these air strikes? the

united states saying they are locked and loaded and ready for more air strikes. well, first of all in a situation as complicated and multilayered and is risky in terms of potential escalation, i think we can do with less hyperbolic in presidential tweets. i don't think that helps the situation. for me, the question in terms ofjudging the action that was taken on friday night into saturday morning is, does it help alleviate humanitarian suffering in syria that predates the chemical attack last week and does it help take syria a further step forward along the road to sustainable peace? isolated air strikes have not achieved either of those things in the past and nothing i have heard has persuaded me that these isolated air strikes will achieve that now. we need a coordinated international effort in

syria, firstly to ensure that security council resolution —— that the security council resolution can ta ke the security council resolution can take effect and also to find a way to bring the different parties together to charter a way towards peace. my worry about the air strikes is not only have they not been effective, but they risked escalating a dangerous situation. but they might make president assad and his regime think twice before using chemical weapons again? well, i certainly hope that will be the case. i'm not sure there is any certainty of that. we have had air strikes before that were supposedly about depleting assad's ability to carry out chemical attacks against his own population that has not had an effect. last year the us launched an effect. last year the us launched an attack on an airbase in syria, supposedly to deplete the

capabilities there. the efficacy of isolated air strikes is questionable. it may make the west feel as if action has been taken, but i do think syria needs gesture action like this, and it may also have an effect on what appears to be a match show stand—off between president trump and vladimir putin. this should not be dictated by the interest president trump, but the interests of the syrian people and it should be sanctioned by the uk parliament and i certainly regret that parliament was not involved in this decision. i hope now there is a full debate in the house of commons and there is an agreement from the prime minister that if there is any changes in the role of the uk in syria, and is that's —— and that

includes... chemical weapons have been used on british soil in salisbury on these skripals and this was action she said against the normalisation of chemical weapons. it's dangerous and these two situation should not be conflated. the use of chemical agents is a common feature, but beyond that we had to be careful. i gave the prime minister my support in terms of the action she took in the wake of the salisbury attack. she made the case that the most likely instigator of that the most likely instigator of that attack was the russian state and if there was any doubt, in those circumstances she deserved the benefit of that doubt and that's why i gave her support, but we have to judge the situation is on their merits and first and foremost we have tojudge the merits and first and foremost we have to judge the action we take on

the basis of its efficacy and whether it will help the situation or, andi whether it will help the situation or, and i accept that in the prime minister's sich could make things inadvertently words. the syrian conflict is in its eighth year, it's a complicate it, bloody civil war, we have superimposed proxy responses. it's a very dangerous situation. we've heard the united nations secretary general talk about the risks of it escalating beyond anyone's control, so cool heads and careful strategy is required at the moment and i worry that what we saw over the weekend does not fulfilled those criteria. it may make the west feel as if something is being done, but if that something is not contributing to longer term peace in syria, then the danger is it makes the situation worse, not better. some people say five years ago when

parliament said no to military action, if action had been taken them, it might have drawn some real red lines and save a lot of lives. if barreca varma had taken action in 2013, it could have saved a lot of lives. —— if barack obama. 2013, it could have saved a lot of lives. -- if barack obama. there is a danger in those arguments. focusing on 2013, if the case was not made to parliament then, then parliament's views should be respected in that regard, but in 2015 the house of commons did authorise the use of force in syria on the bases of targeted attacks against daesh, so there is a parliamentary underpinning of the active engagement of the uk which makes it important. if the terms of engagement of uk forces are going to changes should be authorised by parliament, but given the complexity

of the syrian situation and the suffering that has got worse in terms of the humanitarian suffering of syrian people, especially in eastern it makes it more important that there is a coherent strategy for peace. it's only a matter of weeks and people say the security council of the un is incapable of reaching agreement because of the russian veto and in many respects thatis russian veto and in many respects that is true, but it's only a matter of weeks since the security council resolution was passed. that required ceasefire to allow humanitarian assistance to be got to those suffering, again, especially in eastern ghouta. there should be a patient effort behind the implementation of that, butjust a couple of weeks ago we president trump said us will will be leaving syria soon and now we're seeing air strikes. there needs to be a long—term consistent, patient approach on the part of the

international community. people have been trying for years to get some sort of peace agreement in syria. been trying for years to get some sort of peace agreement in syriam is hopeless. well, maybe we need to try harder and more. is hopeless. well, maybe we need to try harderand more. i is hopeless. well, maybe we need to try harder and more. i don't pretend that these things are easy. i don't pretend that there is not deep frustration regarding previous efforts. i know the frustrations are there, but the idea that isolated air strikes will take syria a single step closer to please, i simply think it does not bear scrutiny and that should be big question that underpins all of the decisions taken. only making the situation better, or are we risking making it worse? and the action of the nature whistle on friday night, i think the danger is