there's been a shooting incident at a grocery supermarket. details are unclear but video shows several people lying motionless on the ground in, and just outside the store in the table mesa area of the city. sporadic gunshots could also be heard. one man has been filmed being led away in handcuffs but police activity is still on scene. we expect the press conference and about half an hour time. several western countries have announced sanctions against officials in china — over human rights abuses against the uighur population in xinjiang prvince. the sanctions were announced as part of a coordinated effort by the european union, uk, canada and the us.

plenty more on that story of the shooting in colorado which we will bring you as soon as we can. now on bbc news, it's hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. it seems the biden administration is putting greater emphasis on human rights issues in the already fraught relationship with china. will that prompt beijing to think twice about the crackdown on pro—democracy activism in hong kong? it seems not. in fact, the repression of political dissent is intensifying. my guest is regina ip, chair of the new people's party, member of hong kong's legislative council, and one of beijing's most loyal backers in the territory. is the concept of "one country, two systems" dead?

regina ip, in hong kong, welcome to hardtalk. thank you for having me. it's a pleasure to have you. you are a member of the legislative council, a hong kong lawmaker. in recent months, it seems to many outsiders that the chinese communist party has rendered the legislative council nothing more than a rubber stamp. how do you feel about that? that is totally untrue. in fact, our 15 colleagues from the so—called pan—democratic camp,

they abandoned their duties. they resigned in november, leaving 43 of us to do the work of 70 people, you know. it is their choice, you know, their call to leave the legislative council. right, but... there is no such thing as a crackdown on democracy in hong kong. well, we'll discuss that. but maybe those pro—democracy politicians who chose to walk away from the legislative council saw what was coming down the track, because in the last few days, we've all read about the decision made by the national people's congress that only, quote unquote, true patriots will be allowed to stand and sit in the legislative council. now, what on earth does that mean? a patriot. a true patriot. are you one? definitely. i think labels... you can't use labels too loosely. a lot of our colleagues, so—called democrats, they are actually anti—democratic

in their values and in their behaviour in the past decade or more, you know. what we are doing... what beijing is doing is launching an electoral reform, which is long overdue. fixing the flaws in our system. we can't do it ourselves, because we don't have the two—thirds majority to amend the provisions in the basic law. so the national people's congress has to step in. you know? and i'm confident that after our electoral laws have been improved, hong kong will be relaunched. we will have a better future. well, it will certainly be relaunched, but it will be relaunched in a way which completely undermines the notion of one country, two systems. because what we see here, and you've just basically said it yourself, is that the political system, the political culture in hong kong, is now being redrawn, reshaped by the national people's congress and the leadership of the communist party in beijing.

and that runs entirely counter to the way in which the promises were made in 1997 for hong kong to be given guaranteed special autonomy. well, i have to remind you, i have in my hand the 1984 authentic copy of the sino—british joint declaration. there is nothing in the joint declaration that refers to democracy or universal suffrage. universal suffrage is given to us by beijing, not by the british authorities. and in fact, since 1997, beijing has progressively, with our support, increased the directly elected element in our legislature. but that has not worked well. our democratic experiment has been a downward spiral, because our colleagues, our so—called democratic colleagues, are only

democratic in name. what they do actually runs counter to democratic values. but, miss ip, that, of course, is your subjective opinion. the problem here is that with this new patriot test, there is going to be a power, and it seems the vetting committee will be full, stuffed full, of people loyal to beijing. there is going to be a power which decides who is suitable and who is not suitable to sit in the legislative council. and to any outside observer, it is very obvious that that is beijing's way of snuffing out all pro—democratic opposition to beijing's complete domination of hong kong. patriot rule in hong kong is nothing new. it was already pronounced by mr deng xiaoping repeatedly in the 1980s. a patriot is simply somebody who welcomes hong kong's reunification with china, and who respects the country and will not do anything

to undermine the stability and prosperity of hong kong. as simple as that. if i may say so, is there...? is there not a very important distinction between the notion of a patriot that is somebody who accepts chinese sovereignty and who also plays great store by the basic law that was implemented when hong kong was returned to china in 1997, and is loyal to the concept of hong kong being a special autonomous region... that is one version of patriotism. your version seems to be not so much that, but much more about plain and simple loyalty to the communist party. and to many people that is not patriotism at all. well, i think you misinterpreted me. there is no conflict between the definition of patriotism that i put forward and the idea of respecting china's sovereignty and upholding our separate systems.

but, you see, some of our colleagues, they took the oath of allegiance, but they burned the basic law. they defaced the chinese emblem. they urged young people to pick up independence, go for independence, you know? you cannot possibly regard that as patriotism or respect for china's sovereignty. so... i think respect for... audio breaks up. in your view, then, anybody who is a democrat who says that, "you know, i have a right to express my opinion "that through peaceful means, i want to advocate for a future for hong kong, which, in the long run, "may involve some form of super—autonomy, maybe even separation, from china"... you're saying that however peaceful, however democratic that argument is made, it is fundamentally subversive and criminal. is that what you're saying? i'm not saying that, but that sort of statement definitely

goes against the basic design, legislative intent on the basic law, and the whole purpose of one country, two systems. our separate systems is predicated on us being a part of the country. you know, the sino—british joint declaration, that your ministers are so fond of referring to, the first statement is, "the prc government will resume "the exercise of sovereignty and restore hong kong "to china, 1july1997." the second statement by your government is, "uk will restore hong kong to china." as simple as that. where does it say that we cannot enact national security laws? yes. or we cannot undertake electoral reviews? you're keen on quoting to me thejoint declaration of 1984. i'm rather keener with you on discussing the promises made by beijing in 1997, which included a guarantee of the basic rights of hong kong people to rights which frankly are not

enjoyed in mainland china, including the right of free expression, assembly, all the things which are now being undermined, but also included a commitment, a commitment, to move toward universal suffrage for the election of the chief minister. now, that is patently not happening, and that is china reneging on a treaty agreement. i'm afraid you've got all the facts completely wrong. the national people's congress is not amending the relevant articles in the basic law, which promised universal suffrage as the ultimate goal. but it's not happening, miss ip. it's not happening at all. because of all the upheaval that these so—called democrats fomented in the past two years. actually, ever since the occupy central in 2014, you know, they have been fomenting chaos. you know, opposition to china's sovereignty in the past few years, derailing our progress towards universal suffrage.

is it true, miss ip, that this goes far beyond a patriot test for future members of the legislative council? is it true, as being reported in the local hong kong media, that civil servants are now being required to swear an oath of allegiance to china, and up to 200 have refused and are facing dismissal? is that true? 200 out of a civil service body of over 180,000, which is not surprising at all. the oath is very simple — to uphold the basic law and swear allegiance to the hong kong sar of the people's republic of china. that's very reasonable. so, let's be clear, then, this loyalty, this loyalty test, which has its origins in beijing, which is all about imposing china's will on hong kong, it doesn't just apply to future lawmakers, it applies to civil servants,

it presumably applies to other senior public officials, including judges and thejudiciary? so, what is happening here is the complete undermining of hong kong's autonomous special status? i'm afraid, again, you've got all the facts wrong. you know, the requirement to take oaths in article 104, you know, of the basic law, they have been there since 1997. alljudges have to take similar oaths. it's nothing new, you know, and it's very reasonable. public servants in other parts of the world also have to swear allegiance. and i saw an advertisement by the cia in the economist that they recruit patriotic professionals. what's wrong with that? recruiting patriotic civil servants? does it trouble you that there is now a great deal of fear in hong kong? we have seen that, in essence, every single voice of hong kong opposition — that is the "pro—democracy voice" — has been either jailed, is currently facing

charges and trial, or has had to flee into exile overseas. you're a lawmaker. you are somebody who presumably believes in the right to express opposition to government, in the right to have an individual opinion. does it worry you that there is now this profound fear in your territory? only among those who might have broken the law in the past few years. our freedoms of expression, assembly, association are alive and well. but, ms ip, you keep telling me that it's all about the law, but sometimes the law to a democrat is simply unacceptable. what we have seen with our own eyes is video evidence injanuary, for example, of police rounding up and arresting political activists simply on the grounds that they were involved in a primary election process amongst the pro—democracy political camp to find the most

effective candidates to stand in the next legislative council elections. that was deemed by the police... and we saw it on video where they told people face—to—face it was deemed as subversive activity. you're a politician. how can you accept that being defined as subversive activity? because, number one, there's no place for, there's no legal, you know, position for countries in our system. but, more importantly, why have they organised these primaries to encourage voters to vote for legislators who would veto everything in order to paralyse the legislature and the government and to force out the chief executive? the object of the primaries is to overthrow the government, it's the criminal intent. it's not as simple as you might have seen from tv coverage. with all due respect, you talk of these politicians as though

they are revolutionaries throwing molotov cocktails on the streets. we spoke recently to kenneth chan, a respected professor at hong kong university, founder of the civic party, a man who by no stretch of any imagination could be called a subversive, a terrorist, a criminal, a man who said this — "it is now in our territory a totalitarian drive for "control that we are witnessing." well, mr chan has his views, but this is opinion is not shared by the great majority of our citizenry, you know, ever since the implementation of the national security law, it is a fact that law and order has returned to hong kong. and large numbers of us can live without being in fear, without being fearful of being beaten up by people who disagree with our views. you know, if you have lived in hong kong from 2019, through 2019 to early last

year, you will have known how much fear, how worried we were about personal safety whenever we go out. interesting you say that, ms ip, because, as far as i can see, the best way of gauging what hong kongers really feel is to go back to november 2019 and the municipal, the local elections, the last time that anything like a universal suffrage vote was able to be held in hong kong. and you know better than me what the results of that were, that, in 17 of the 18 municipalities, there was a clear win for the pro—democracy forces. your party did so badly. i'm not sure you even won a single seat. that tells you what hong kongers really feel. those elections were held in unfair conditions — my volunteers, my candidates were threatened, our offices were burned down, there was all sorts of vicious propaganda against us plastered on public properties.

it was held against a background of violence and vandalism. you know, those elections actually should not have been held. you make it sound like it was an election held in a time of great turmoil and unrest and voting was impossible. you know what the turnout was? it was over 70%. you know how many seats your party got? zero. zero, ms ip. well, we failed to win seats, but we got more votes than we did in the previous elections. in fact, we got a high percentage of votes in every constituency. i just wonder whether you're prepared to accept that when hong kongers read, as they currently do, that even museums and galleries are being monitored by the authorities because they are not prepared to countenance even artists putting on display pieces that are regarded

as disloyal to beijing, when academics are being removed from their university post cos they're deemed not to be loyal enough to beijing, do you understand that hong kongers regard this as a fundamental threat to the freedoms, the special autonomy they have enjoyed since 1997? we are a free society. people of different political stripes, they have every freedom to express their views on so—called objects or professors, you know, actually pedalling, you know... ..misleading ideologies in university, abusing their positions. excuse me, but i'm just looking at a quote from carrie lam, chief executive, somebody you are very loyal to, saying that the authorities are now on "full alert for any breaches of the national security law when it comes to exhibitions in hong kong." "everybody knows," she says, "that the red lines "are now clearly recognisable. " is that the hong kong

you want to live in? i think it is good that the red lines are clearly recognisable so that people will not fall foul of the law, you know, and we are still a much freer society than many democracies. what you seem to be describing, as you say that you support all of these different measures, which, let us not forget, are all inspired in beijing, you seem to be saying that you want hong kong essentially to look more and more like the rest of china, you want a one—party authoritarian style of government, just as we see in the chinese mainland, you want that to come to hong kong. it's unfair to describe china as authoritarian or closed or orwellian, you know — these are typical labels people like you keep on my country. actually, china has made great progress in the past decades, and people have a lot more freedom than before. we are a part of china

and naturally we are... we would be open to the influence of china, but we remain an international city, and there are lots of foreigners, expatriates, living very happily in hong kong. of course, you're part of china, but the entire conversation we've had has been premised upon the notion that there is in hong kong this adherence to the notion of one country, two systems. you were telling me that that is, in effect, dead. that's totally... you are twisting my words. i think "one country, two systems" is alive and well. we have our separate financial system, taxation system, our separate common law system. you know, we have our separate way of life. we speak cantonese, mainlanders speak putonghua. we have our own local culture, entertainment. we have our own culture and values, you know? well, we've just been discussing culture and the new red lines that you say are very important to uphold. so let's move on from culture

to what this might mean. let me quote to you the words of fergus leung, a pro—democracy councillor. he said this. he said, "the chinese communist pa rty�*s latest moves k ery. apologies for taking you away from hardtop. let's go live to old to colorado for breaking news from there on those reports of the active shooter at a grocery store what police are describing as multiple casualties and police giving a news conference now. —— boulder, colorado. at news conference now. -- boulder, colorado. at that we seak boulder, colorado. at that we speak will _ boulder, colorado. at that we speak will take _ boulder, colorado. at that we speak will take a _ boulder, colorado. at that we speak will take a few - speak will take a few questions. we are in the early stages of a very large investigation that will take some time. we will not be able to answer a lot of your questions. at that i will turn it over to commanded carrie

yamaguchi from the boulder police department. —— commander carrie yamaguchi. police department. -- commander carrie yamaguchi.— carrie yamaguchi. good evening. can everybody — carrie yamaguchi. good evening. can everybody hear— carrie yamaguchi. good evening. can everybody hear me - carrie yamaguchi. good evening. can everybody hear me 0k? - carrie yamaguchi. good evening. can everybody hear me 0k? as l can everybody hear me 0k? as the unshared, we had a very tragic— the unshared, we had a very tragic incident today here at the king _ tragic incident today here at the king supermarket. there was loss of— the king supermarket. there was loss of life — the king supermarket. there was loss of life. we have multiple people — loss of life. we have multiple people who were killed in this incident _ people who were killed in this incident. and i am sorry to have — incident. and i am sorry to have to _ incident. and i am sorry to have to report that one of them was a _ have to report that one of them was a boulder police officer. during — was a boulder police officer. during this trying time, i would _ during this trying time, i would ask the media public to honour— would ask the media public to honour the privacy of the officers _ honour the privacy of the officers family and his co—workers here at the police department. i will also share that— department. i will also share that we — department. i will also share that we got tremendous support from _ that we got tremendous support from our— that we got tremendous support from our fellow law enforcement agencies — from our fellow law enforcement agencies both in boulder county with us— agencies both in boulder county with us some of them you see

behind — with us some of them you see behind me, the fbi, atf, and other— behind me, the fbi, atf, and other denver metro agencies. without— other denver metro agencies. without that quick response, we don't _ without that quick response, we don't know if there would've been — don't know if there would've been more loss of life. i can share — been more loss of life. i can share with _ been more loss of life. i can share with the public today, this— share with the public today, this evening, that there is no ongoing _ this evening, that there is no ongoing public threat, that we do have — ongoing public threat, that we do have a _ ongoing public threat, that we do have a person of interest in custody — do have a person of interest in custody. that person was injured _ custody. that person was injured during the incident, and — injured during the incident, and is _ injured during the incident, and is being treated for the injuries _ good evening. my name is michael doherty, the district attorney for boulder county. this is a tragedy in a nightmare for boulder county. and a response we have cooperation and assistance from local state and federal authorities. this will very much be a coordinated effort and we will stand united in

support of the victims and theirfamilies to ensure support of the victims and their families to ensure that justice is done. it is very early stage in the investigation as you've heard, and we have a lot of work to do, but we will be giving out more information if that becomes available as we nail down the facts here as commander yamaguchi said, there is an individual in custody currently with multiple victims and we will be doing everything we can to fight for them and theirfamilies to make we can to fight for them and their families to make sure that we reach the right and just outcome. thank you. good evening. i'm kelly mckennon, spokesperson for king soopers — mckennon, spokesperson for king soopers. our hearts are broken over— soopers. our hearts are broken over this — soopers. our hearts are broken over this senseless act of violence _ over this senseless act of violence. the entire king soopers _ violence. the entire king soopers family offers our thoughts, prayers and support to our— thoughts, prayers and support to our associates, our customers, and first responders who so— customers, and first responders who so bravely responded to these — who so bravely responded to these acts of violence. we are

working — these acts of violence. we are working a _ these acts of violence. we are working a full cooperation with locat— working a full cooperation with local law — working a full cooperation with local law enforcement and will be deferring all questions to them — be deferring all questions to them for the integrity of the investigation. thank you. —— for the — investigation. thank you. —— for the entirety of the investigation.- for the entirety of the investigation. for the entirety of the investiuation. ., , ., , investigation. can you tell us what happened, _ investigation. can you tell us | what happened, commander? investigation. can you tell us - what happened, commander? as what happened, commander? .ee; already what happened, commander? already been mentioned, very early in the investigation we are still. as they shared, we responded here officers were here within minutes of the initial 911 call, and enter the building very quickly. than? building very quickly. any possible _ building very quickly. any possible model _ building very quickly. any possible model for - building very quickly. any possible model for this? building very quickly. any - possible modelfor this? very earl in possible modelfor this? very early in the — possible modelfor this? very early in the investigation. - possible model for this?“ early in the investigation. we don't have any details that i can share forth the best possible motives. there will be additional information released as it is gathered and it is appropriate to release and that will come from the boulder police department.- will come from the boulder police department. when did the call come in? _

police department. when did the call come in? before _ police department. when did the call come in? before three - call come in? before three o'clock- — call come in? before three o'clock. can _ call come in? before three o'clock. can you _ call come in? before three o'clock. can you tell- call come in? before three o'clock. can you tell us - call come in? before three | o'clock. can you tell us how many peeple _ o'clock. can you tell us how many people have - o'clock. can you tell us how many people have died? i o'clock. can you tell us how| many people have died? we o'clock. can you tell us how - many people have died? we are very early _ many people have died? we are very early in _ many people have died? we are very early in the _ very early in the investigation. we are still processing the scene. you know if the shooter _ processing the scene. you know if the shooter said _ processing the scene. you know if the shooter said anything - processing the scene. you know if the shooter said anything as l if the shooter said anything as the shooter— if the shooter said anything as the shooter entered _ if the shooter said anything as the shooter entered the - the shooter entered the building? _ the shooter entered the building?— the shooter entered the buildin ? . , the shooter entered the buildin? . , ., building? that will be part of the investigation. _ building? that will be part of the investigation. what- the investigation. what happened _ the investigation. what happened on _ the investigation. what happened on 17th - the investigation. what happened on 17th st? l the investigation. what. happened on 17th st? that the investigation. what- happened on 17th st? that was unrelated we _ happened on 17th st? that was unrelated we believe _ happened on 17th st? that was unrelated we believe to - happened on 17th st? that was unrelated we believe to this i unrelated we believe to this investigation.— unrelated we believe to this investigation. was there only one shooter? _ investigation. was there only one shooter? still _ one shooter? still investigating. - one shooter? still - investigating. injuries in investigating. in'uries in addition h investigating. in'uries in addition to _ investigating. injuries in addition to those - investigating. injuries in addition to those who i investigating. injuries in i addition to those who were killed? _ addition to those who were killed? airl— addition to those who were killed? ~ , , ., addition to those who were killed? ~ , ,., ., y killed? at this point, the only in'ured killed? at this point, the only injured party _ killed? at this point, the only injured party we _ killed? at this point, the only injured party we are - killed? at this point, the only injured party we are aware . killed? at this point, the only injured party we are aware of| injured party we are aware of significant injury must be suspect. we know of no other serious injuries at this point. do you know if there is any relationship _ do you know if there is any relationship between - do you know if there is any relationship between the l relationship between the government— relationship between the government and - relationship between the government and the -

relationship between the i government and the people relationship between the - government and the people this stuff? _ government and the people this stuff? , , ., ., stuff? -- between the shooter that far. that _ stuff? -- between the shooter that far. that will _ stuff? -- between the shooter that far. that will be _ stuff? -- between the shooter that far. that will be part - stuff? -- between the shooter that far. that will be part of i that far. that will be part of the investigation. how many? they are still processing the scene. , ., ~ ., they are still processing the scene. ~ ., ., , scene. the you know how people in the store _ scene. the you know how people in the store at _ scene. the you know how people in the store at the _ scene. the you know how people in the store at the time? - scene. the you know how people in the store at the time? don't . in the store at the time? don't know. in the store at the time? don't know- -- _ in the store at the time? don't know. -- know— in the store at the time? don't know. -- know how _ in the store at the time? don't know. -- know how many - in the store at the time? don't i know. -- know how many people know. —— know how many people were in the store. don't know how many are at the hospital currently. i know for sure there is one.— currently. i know for sure there is one. where is there video the — there is one. where is there video the cameras _ there is one. where is there video the cameras that - there is one. where is there | video the cameras that might have — video the cameras that might have picked _ video the cameras that might have picked what _ video the cameras that might have picked what happened? | video the cameras that might - have picked what happened? that will all be a _ have picked what happened? that will all be a part— have picked what happened? will all be a part of the investigation.- will all be a part of the investigation. will all be a part of the investiuation. ., , . investigation. that this man have any — investigation. that this man have any connection - investigation. that this man have any connection to - investigation. that this man have any connection to king j have any connection to king soopers _ have any connection to king soopers or— have any connection to king soopers or the _ have any connection to king soopers or the workers? . have any connection to king | soopers or the workers? i’m“ have any connection to king soopers or the workers? i'm not aware of that. _ soopers or the workers? i'm not aware of that. i _ soopers or the workers? i'm not aware of that. i don't _ soopers or the workers? i'm not aware of that. i don't know. - aware of that. i don't know. that is part of the investigation. that is part of the investiuation. ~ , , ., , investigation. wish your first call for the _ investigation. wish your first call for the man _ investigation. wish your first call for the man in _ investigation. wish your first call for the man in active - call for the man in active shooter— call for the man in active shooter parking - call for the man in active shooter parking lot - call for the man in active shooter parking lot and i call for the man in active - shooter parking lot and then it moved — shooter parking lot and then it moved inside? _ shooter parking lot and then it moved inside? i— shooter parking lot and then it moved inside?— moved inside? i haven't had a chance to _ moved inside? i haven't had a chance to review _ moved inside? i haven't had a chance to review any - moved inside? i haven't had a chance to review any of - moved inside? i haven't had a chance to review any of those | chance to review any of those calls. i cannot tell you about those things yet. military style. was he wearing mititary— military style. was he wearing military style _ military style. was he wearing military style gear? _ military style. was he wearing military style gear?— military style gear? don't know. that _ military style gear? don't know. that will _

military style gear? don't know. that will be - military style gear? don't know. that will be part i military style gear? don't know. that will be part of military style gear? don't - know. that will be part of the investigation?— know. that will be part of the investigation? what about the wea on? investigation? what about the weapon? no _ investigation? what about the weapon? no details _ investigation? what about the weapon? no details on - investigation? what about the weapon? no details on that. l investigation? what about the i weapon? no details on that. our crime scene _ weapon? no details on that. our crime scene folks _ weapon? no details on that. our crime scene folks have _ weapon? no details on that. our crime scene folks have just - crime scene folks have just recently entered the crime scene to stop processing. it scene to stop processing. if the shirtless guy the person of interest? — the shirtless guy the person of interest? be— the shirtless guy the person of interest? be certain _ the shirtless guy the person of interest? be certain man- the shirtless guy the person of interest? be certain man seen| interest? be certain man seen taking— interest? be certain man seen taking out— interest? be certain man seen taking out to _ interest? be certain man seen taking out to an— interest? be certain man seen taking out to an ambulance? i| taking out to an ambulance? would be speculating on who you're talking i cannot confirm that. �* , you're talking i cannot confirm that. v , you're talking i cannot confirm that. �*, , ., ., that. it's been more than three hours since _ that. it's been more than three hours since the _ that. it's been more than three hours since the call. _ that. it's been more than three hours since the call. you - that. it's been more than three hours since the call. you can'tl hours since the call. you can't tell us— hours since the call. you can't tell us how— hours since the call. you can't tell us how many _ hours since the call. you can't tell us how many people - hours since the call. you can't tell us how many people are i tell us how many people are dead? — tell us how many people are dead? i— tell us how many people are dead? .�* tell us how many people are dead? ., �* ., ., dead? i don't have that information _ dead? i don't have that information right - dead? i don't have that information right now. | dead? i don't have that| information right now. if dead? i don't have that - information right now. if the susect information right now. if the suspect at — information right now. if the suspect at boulder - information right now. if the . suspect at boulder community? information right now. if the - suspect at boulder community? i want suspect at boulder community? want to interject. there's a lot of— want to interject. there's a lot of investigation already under— lot of investigation already under way. a lot of things are being — under way. a lot of things are being realised as the crime scene _ being realised as the crime scene is _ being realised as the crime scene is being processed including the number of victims which _ including the number of victims which is — including the number of victims which is known to police investigators but i want to stress _ investigators but i want to stress that the victims family members are still being notified so your billing really sensitive to the victim's family— sensitive to the victim's family so i appreciate commander yamaguchi not giving out more —

commander yamaguchi not giving out more information at this point — out more information at this point but _ out more information at this point but even for the facts of which — point but even for the facts of which we _ point but even for the facts of which we are certain those conversations will be added with— conversations will be added with the families first. those conversations are not taking place — conversations are not taking place. we will be talking to the families first and then giving _ the families first and then giving out more information. any— giving out more information. any connection between the two? boutder— any connection between the two? boulder police _ any connection between the two? boulder police will— any connection between the two? boulder police will be _ any connection between the two? boulder police will be giving - boulder police will be giving out the _ boulder police will be giving out the information. i recognised the need to get that information out. but i also recognise that we have one suspect— recognise that we have one suspect in custody, and we will ensure — suspect in custody, and we will ensure thatjustice is done and to do— ensure thatjustice is done and to do that _ ensure thatjustice is done and to do that we will make sure we have _ to do that we will make sure we have the — to do that we will make sure we have the facts certain and understood before we start sharing _ understood before we start sharing them with the media and public _ sharing them with the media and public. that will happen in the next _ public. that will happen in the next couple of hours. he described _ next couple of hours. he described the _ next couple of hours. he described the suspect? any motive? _ described the suspect? any motive? i— described the suspect? any motive? ., ., ., described the suspect? any motive? ., ., . motive? i do not have any information _ motive? i do not have any information as _ motive? i do not have any information as to - motive? i do not have any information as to the - motive? i do not have any i information as to the motive motive? i do not have any - information as to the motive at this point _ information as to the motive at this point. it is really early in the _ this point. it is really early in the investigation. in this point. it is really early in the investigation.- in the investigation. in the identification? _ in the investigation. in the identification? i— in the investigation. in the identification? i cannot - in the investigation. in the identification? i cannot do| identification? i cannot do that at this _ identification? i cannot do that at this point - identification? i cannot do that at this point but - identification? i cannot do that at this point but the i that at this point but the police _ that at this point but the police will be releasing more information.— police will be releasing more information. how are families who might — information. how are families who might been _ information. how are families who might been impacted - information. how are families who might been impacted by| information. how are families i who might been impacted by this looking _ who might been impacted by this looking for— who might been impacted by this looking for a _ who might been impacted by this looking for a loved _ who might been impacted by this looking for a loved one _ who might been impacted by this looking for a loved one being - looking for a loved one being notified —

looking for a loved one being notified that _ looking for a loved one being notified that their— looking for a loved one being notified that their family - notified that their family members _ notified that their family members are _ notified that their family members are ok? - notified that their family members are ok? so i notified that their family members are ok? , ., members are ok? so the senior police department _ members are ok? so the senior police department is _ members are ok? so the senior police department is helping . police department is helping with family members that may have _ with family members that may have questions about love once~~ _ welcome to bbc news. my name's mike embley. our top stories — police in colorado say there have been multiple fatalites during a shooting at a supermarket in boulder, including a police officer. a person is now in custody. several western governments impose sanctions on china because of alleged human rights abuses against ethnic uighurs in xinjiang. a huge fire sweeps through a rohingya refugee camp in bangladesh, destroying thousands of homes. the dispute over covid vaccine supplies continues as the uk is warned the sharp rise in european cases means it will not escape the effects of a third wave.