relatives who might be in need, not to help people who we would normally and instinctively want to help on the prime minister's message tonight, dominic cummings‘ behaviour was defensible because he was following instincts. well, if all of us following instincts. well, if all of us had followed our instincts we would have crashed through the rule set by the government. it is this distinction between following rules and following instincts that will really u pset and following instincts that will really upset people. it is the case that it really upset people. it is the case thatitis really upset people. it is the case that it is one rule for an adviser to the prime minister and the different rule for everyone else. i am really disappointed, as a conservative supporter and boris johnson, to see someone i really believed in send such a disappointing message to the country. so you think, as a prominent commentator on the conservative party and so forth, that he should have been fired by mr johnson? he should have been fired 24 johnson? he should have been fired 2a hours ago, clive. the complete

hypocrisy of setting rules which you do not then follow. 68% of people, according to an opinion poll said they thought the prime minister‘s adviser, dominic cummings had broken the rules. we are in the middle of something which we were told by government is a very dangerous pandemic. it is vital that when the government is issuing rules in such an environment that people have confidence in what the government is saying. i think the government has com pletely saying. i think the government has completely undermined confidence in its own messages by excusing dominic cummings‘ behaviour in a way the prime minister did at the press conference this evening. do you think this undermines the government‘s credibility, notjust in terms of the pandemic but moving forward , in terms of the pandemic but moving forward, if it is possible, because of this pandemic and its legislative agenda, its ideas on where the country should be going? this upsets me lots of ways, as a conservative.

the general election victory that borisjohnson masterminded last december was a real high for me as a conservative, as a brexit supporter. i was really hopeful this government would be able to really live up to the promises that it made and it would fulfil the trust that a large number of british people placed in it for the first time, particularly from the north of england. the fact it could be quite so cavalier with its promises, that is dangerous. this week the official number of deaths in care homes in england and wales from covid—i9 will pass 10,000. that won‘t include residents who died in hospital. care leaders say two months into the pandemic support for homes this week the official number of deaths in care homes in england and wales from covid—i9 will pass 10,000. that won‘t include residents who died in hospital. care leaders say two months into the pandemic support for homes remains patchy and inconsistent. in the last week, the bbc has spoken to more than 100 residential and nursing homes —

nearly a third had still had no staff tested for the virus. the government says it threw a protective ring around care homes from the start and that the majority are coronavirus free. 0ur social affairs correspondent, alison holt has returned to one home we have followed through the crisis to get their views. out of mind for too long, the strain on care staff is so close to the surface. it‘s like an emotion, you know? you‘re up and down, you‘re up and down. you‘re caring for people under the hardest conditions. erm, to see people get so sick and so poorly and only be able to hold their hand, not be able to give them a cuddle, not be able to do myjob, it makes me feel frustrated inside. 0ne home, but their experience here tells the story of so many. we‘ve followed care staff at st ives lodge in chingford, as they‘ve struggled with covid—19. six residents have died. now eight weaks on, they hope they‘ve got the better of the virus. now eight weeks on, they hope they‘ve got the better of the virus. so, right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes... this wasn‘t what the home

manager remembers. struggling to get testing, protective equipment and health support, she felt ignored. we've made sure that care homes have the resources they need to control the spread of infection. well, that makes me really angry to watch that, erm, because it's rubbish. going back to that time — and even now — we still feel like we're on our own. we had no—one. you know, we were making decisions, we were using google. it was... it was a nightmare, you know, but we did it. staff locked the home down in early march. then, official advice in england said it was unlikely people in residential and nursing homes would be infected by the virus. that advice changed on march the 13th, when care homes were told they should ask no—one to visit who has suspected covid—19, or is generally unwell. three days later, st ives lodge had its first case — a resident who visited hospital regularly. the virus spread to others he sat with at mealtimes. 0n the 17th, the nhs told hospitals

they should urgently discharge all hospital in—patients who were medically fit to leave. there‘s increasing evidence that some patients took the virus into homes. 0n the 21st, the government said the medically vulnerable should shield, including those in care homes. three days later, lockdown began for everyone. at this point, the representatives of key care organisations believe that their voice was not really being heard at the heart of government. the focus was on preventing hospitals being overwhelmed. i think it says something about how we value people in the care system. vic rayner, who represents not—for—profit care homes, says in march, some residents were receiving blanket letters from gps, saying they might not be taken to hospital. "we will be signing forms to say if your heart and breathing stop, the carers will not try to resuscitate you. there will not be ambulances available to come and continue any resuscitation, or take you to hospital."

the home that received this letter refused to pass it on to its residents. it‘s not thinking about people. it‘s not thinking about individuals. it‘s thinking about a process and a system, and it‘s saying, the system can‘t help you. three weeks into lockdown, with the pandemic at its peak, council directors of social care wrote to the government describing protective equipment distribution as "shambolic", guidance as "contradictory", and saying social care appeared "an afterthought". four days later, the health and care secretary set out his action plan. the government insists it‘s provided the care sector with protective equipment, testing and extra money, and in a system that was already underfunded and under pressure, there‘s talk of the longer—term reform that‘s needed. i'm hopeful that this crisis will mean that the government realises it can't afford not to reform social care. i think too often, in the past, the focus has been on the cost

of reform, without thinking about the human and financial consequences of not reforming. for residents and care staff, getting this right for the future couldn‘t be more important. 0n the 15th ofjune, we have a response from the national association of her teachers and general secretary saying that there was a more realistic tone from the prime minister unschooled reopening that they acknowledge the flexibility will not just that they acknowledge the flexibility will notjust be possible, but necessary and welcomed. he also had some reactions as well. this reaction comes from the national education union it is not convinced that it is time to open schools more widely in the

prime minister said that they can move to wider openings but acknowledge that many will not be ready to do it by that date the national education union said that independent evidence does not justify wider opening. so that from two significant unions. now on bbc news... in his first uk broadcast interview in five years, facebook founder, mark zuckerberg, talks to the bbc‘s business editor simon jack about fake news, fact checking, and the upcoming us presidential election. are there some permanent changes that you perceive from this and what do you think that your company‘s role has been during this crisis? sure, so... right now, we are mostly focused on helping people get through this period before worrying about what the longer changes are. but we focused on three main areas.

one is responding to the acute health crisis. the second is helping people stay connected with the people they care about, especially now since a lot of us are at home and can‘t go out and see our families and the people we love. so you are seeing internet use and communication app use go up a lot and there‘s a lot that we need to do there. and then the third area is on economic recovery. so, right now, we‘re seeing a lot of pain for small businesses, they‘re having a hard time staying open as a lot of people are staying home. that means that millions of people are losing jobs and i think anything that we can do to help small businesses survive, stay afloat during this period and one of the biggest things that we are seeing there is a lot of small businesses are moving online, right? so, small businesses that didn‘t previously have an online presence or it wasn‘t a big part of what they did like a restaurant are now increasingly becoming

like e—commerce businesses where they put their inventory online, people can order it and get delivery quickly. and then of course, a lot of other businesses that had online presences before, that‘s now quickly become their main store front. 0n the immediate health risks, if some crazy person decided to start telling people to, i don‘t know, drink or inject bleach, or you know, saying colloidal silver would be a good way of keeping the virus at bay, what is the facebook algorithm‘s response to that? well, it‘s not our algorithm. we have policies around this, around stopping misinformation. we break this into two categories. so, there is harmful misinformation that puts people in imminent risk of physical harm. so, things like saying that something is a proven cure for the virus when in fact it isn‘t. we will take that down. and there have been hundreds

of thousands of cases of things that are harmful misinformation. another example which i know has been very prevalent in the uk has been 56 misinformation which has led to some physical damage of 56 infrastructure. so, we believe that that is leading to imminent risk of physical harm and we take down that content. there have been hundreds of thousands of pieces of content like that. and we do take it down... we enforce that no matter who is saying it. so there was a case where the brazilian president went out and said that it was proven by all scientists, or something to that effect, that there is a drug that is proven to cure coronavirus and that‘s obviously not true. there is nothing yet at least that i‘m aware of that‘s proven to be a cure. so, we had to enforce that. even if something isn‘t going to cause imminent risk of physical harm,

we don‘t want misinformation to be the content that is broadly going viral across the network. so, we work with independent fact checkers. over the course of this period since the covid outbreak, they‘ve issued about 7,500 kind of articles saying fact checking content which has led to us showing about 50 million warning labels on different posts across our services. and we know that those posts are effective because 95% of the time when someone sees a post that has a warning label on, they don‘t click through to see it. so, if you are saying something that is going to put people at imminent risk of harm, we take that down. if you are saying something that is just wrong but is spreading quickly but isn‘t going to put people at imminent risk, we don‘t take that down but we stop it from spreading generally. no one doubts the awesome responsibility that a company like facebook, which has whatsapp and instagram of course, the responsibility

it has in the world. i mean, your old friend chris hughes who founded the company with you wrote a little note saying that facebook should be broken up. these are his words... "mark alone because of the voting structure can decide how to configure the algorithm to discern what people see in their news feeds, what privacy settings they can use, and even which messages get delivered. he sets the rules for how to distinguish violent and incendiary speech." i mean, that is... do you — hand—on—heart as the controlling shareholder in facebook, do you hand—on—heart think it is a good idea for that responsibility to be vested in one human being, you? well, i‘ve actually said publically that i don‘t think that any one individual or any company should be making so many decisions about important values for society like free expression and safety. and we‘ve taken a lot of actions on that front. just recently we‘ve established this independent oversight board which basically what it is, it‘s starting off, it‘s a group

of about 20 experts who all... folks like formerjudges, former prime minister of denmark, academics, journalists, leaders of nonprofits, people who come from countries around the world and have a diversity of experiences but all have a commitment and understanding of free expression and human rights. and this oversight board will make it so that people in our community can appeal if they think we are making a decision incorrectly on content. and this board will have the final binding say. so if they say that something needs to come down or needs to stay up, at that point it doesn‘t even matter what i think or what the other folks on our team think. this independent board will get to make that decision. so, i do think that there needs to be some additional governance beyond just our company making

all of the decisions which is why we are taking steps like that. i think that‘s very important. i know you are worth around $80 billion. ijust wonder why it‘s so important to you personally to stay in charge with this iron grip on a company at this stage of its development when it has this incredible role and responsibility in the way that, you know, moderating humanity. well, i think that being the founder of a company... i‘ve been able to help build something that first of all a lot of people around the world really like using... they wouldn‘t like it any less if you sold some shares or change the voting structure, they‘d still like it. sure. and to be clear, i have sold a lot of shares and i‘m giving... i‘ve committed to giving 99% of my wealth away over the course of my lifetime through the chan zuckerberg initiative, the family philanthropy that i‘ve set up and already given a lot of money away through that. so, that‘s under way.

i mean, look, there are things that we are able to do because i control the company and can take a longer—term outlook than other kind of shorter—term shareholder driven companies wouldn‘t be able to do. i think that if i didn‘t control the company, we would‘ve sold the company earlier on in its history to yahoo. and who knows what would‘ve happened then? when mobile was emerging, we started off as a website but now mobile is by far the biggest way people use the service and around the time of our ipo, there was a huge pressure. we hadn‘t built the business around mobile yet and everyone was saying, "you have to focus on building the business." and i said, "no, we need to make sure we get the experience right. that‘s going to take a couple of years which means our business isn‘t going to do well for a couple of years but i think that‘s the right thing over the long term." and that definitely ended up being true. and i think it would have been very hard for a lot of other companies to make decisions like that. we‘ve got a us election coming up. at the time of the last election, you‘ll remember of course

there was the cambridge analytica scandal where tens of millions of facebook users‘ data ended up in the hands of political lobbyists, etc. what are you doing to make sure that is not the case? because looking at — there was a princeton university survey saying that facebook was the fastest and biggest purveyor of misinformation in the us. do you think that facebook can influence the way people vote? well, there were a lot of questions and issues that you raised in what you just said. i think that the reality here is we‘ve learned a lot since about how politics work online since 2016 and there are a lot of different threats that we‘ve worked hard to mitigate. so, for example, one big area that we were behind on in 2016 — but i think now are quite advanced at — is identifying and fighting these coordinated information campaigns that come from different state actors around the world

whether it‘s russia, or iran, or in some cases china. in 2016, this was a new kind of tactic. but now since then, we‘ve worked with governments and the intelligence community and other tech companies to identify — i think it‘s about 50 different campaigns like this around the world where different states were trying to interfere — and take those down before they were able to cause a lot of harm. we‘ve taken down billions of fake accounts across the system, and we have also taken a lot of measures to limit the spread of misinformation across our systems. so, for where we are today, now we have had the benefit since 2016 — we‘ve played a role in helping to protect the integrity of dozens of elections around the world since then. all with better and cleaner results then i think what we saw in 2016. than i think what we saw in 2016. so, it‘s not that there aren‘t going to be continuing issues.

countries are going to continue trying to interfere. so we will see issues like that. but it‘s a little bit of an arms race in that way. but i certainly think our systems are a lot more advanced now, i think in many ways more advanced than any other company or a lot of governments around the world. and i feel pretty confident about our ability to help protect the integrity of the upcoming elections.

borisjohnson boris johnson stands borisjohnson stands by his chief adviser: fritz resignation of her allegedly breaking coronavirus lockdown rules. are you going to resign? dominic cummings was following instinct and travelling over 250 miles for child care when his wife showed coronavirus symptoms. i believe that in every respect, he has acted responsibly and illegally, and with integrity. the deaths and care homes to coronavirus, or the governments promises to protect residents being met? protests in hong kong