this is bbc news. the headlines: a major report says social class and family structure play a bigger part than race in determining people's lives in the uk. the report is saying racism doesn't exist. we found anecdotal evidence of this. however, what we did find was evidence of actual institutional racism, no, that wasn't there, we didn't find that in our report. the prime minister says the government will assesses the implications of the controversial report. but campaigners say they feel �*deeply�* let down. don'tjoin large groups and take your litter home — the message to people out enjoying the sun as one council decides to close some of its parks after what it described as "appalling scenes" yesterday. as germany limits its use of the astrazeneca vaccine

to the over 60s, europe braces itself for a third covid wave. the last day of shielding in england and wales — we hearfrom one man about his year of isolation. and it's just two weeks until outdoor visitor attractions like zoos and theme parks can reopen in england after a tough year for the industry. good afternoon. race and racism have become less important factors in explaining social disparities in the uk — that's the controversial conclusion of a major review commissioned by the government. the commission on race and ethnic disparities, set up after the black lives matter protests, found that social class and family structure played a bigger role in determining people's lives.

the commission says concerns that the uk is institutionally racist are not borne out by the evidence — but that overt racism remains. this afternoon the prime minister, borisjohnson has said "it is now right that the government considers their recommendations in detail, and assesses the implications for future government policy." but campaigners say they feel �*deeply, massively let down�* by the report — and that the government did not have the confidence of black and minority ethnic communities. greg mackenzie reports. last summer's black lives matter protests were some of the biggest seen in the uk. black lives matter! hundreds of thousands of people lined the streets up and down the country calling for change. it was triggered by the killing of george floyd in america. the government reacted and commissioned a report looking into racial disparities, which it has published today. no—one in the report is saying racism doesn't exist.

we found anecdotal evidence of this. however, what we did find was the evidence of actual institutional racism, no. that wasn't there, we didn't find that in our report. the report concludes race and racism have become less important factors in explaining social disparities. but its author admits while racism does exist in this country, the uk is not institutionally racist, which has angered some race campaigners. the two people appointed to lead an independent commission were on record denying structural racism and institutional racism 15 years ago. so it's no surprise that we have tony sewell saying he didn't find any evidence of institutional racism. well, he denied its existence 15 years ago. he is hardly going to change his mind. the commission has made 2a recommendations, which include the acronym bame, that is black, asian and minority ethnic, should no longer be used.

other recommendations include creating a police workforce that represents the communities they serve. and increasing the legitimacy and accountability of stop and search through body—worn video cameras. the prime minister asked them to do this report because although he thinks that there is a good deal of progress that has been made in recent years, there is a lot more to do. and so we will be listening and reading very carefully the recommendations from the commissioners about what more the country needs to do to tackle inequalities. the commission believes that if these recommendations are implemented, it will give a further burst of momentum to the story of the uk's progress to a successful, multiethnic and multicultural community. but some race campaigners believe we are some way off actually achieving this. greg mckenzie, bbc news. a little earlier i spoke to our home editor mark easton about how the report

has been received. if the government was hoping this commission report was going to lead to a kind of settled view on the question of racism in the uk. frankly it was always going to be a struggle, because if you recall going back to the black lives matter protests, the prime minister at that time made it clear, he said what i really want to do as prime minister is change the narrative so we stop the sense of victimisation and discrimination. so antiracism groups were already a bit concerned. then his policy chief, munira mirza, was involved, it was reported she was involved in a sort of appointing the commission and yet she was somebody who'd said the institution of racism was a perception rather than a reality, the antiracism had become weaponised across the political spectrum and then we see the appointment of tony sewell which actually led some antiracism activists to consider seeking

a judicial review. because they felt he had already made his mind up about institutional racism. you know, the concern is that the accusation that the report is sort of saying what ministers want to hear and it was hand—picked, whatever the truth about that, it will have some traction. and actually, i think this report has a lot of common sense in it, to be honest. whatever the committee finds, whether it is right or wrong and indeed whether the commission itself acted entirely impartially is not really the point. the problem is that people willjust say, this wasn't independent. and that will potentially just serve to deepen division and distrust. we can speak now to professor andrews from the birmingham city univeristy where he is professor of black studies. hello. thank you forjoining us. i don't know if you were able to listen to mark easton, he was talking about the author, the authors behind the report as much as the content. you are on record as

being strongly critical of this report and i wonder if you feel you knew what the conclusions were going to be? , ., , , , to be? there is nothing surprising about this- _ to be? there is nothing surprising about this. it— to be? there is nothing surprising about this. it is _ to be? there is nothing surprising about this. it is not _ to be? there is nothing surprising about this. it is not a _ to be? there is nothing surprising about this. it is not a genuine - about this. it is not a genuine attempt to understand racism, it was tr to change the narrative and that is why they got a bunch of racism deniers to say that institutional racism doesn't exist. mas deniers to say that institutional racism doesn't exist.— deniers to say that institutional racism doesn't exist. was it to see if institutional _ racism doesn't exist. was it to see if institutional racism _ racism doesn't exist. was it to see if institutional racism exists - racism doesn't exist. was it to see if institutional racism exists in - if institutional racism exists in the uk? ~ if institutional racism exists in the uk? ., ., , if institutional racism exists in theuk? . ., ., the uk? we already had two reports, the uk? we already had two reports, the race disparity _ the uk? we already had two reports, the race disparity audit, _ the uk? we already had two reports, the race disparity audit, the - the uk? we already had two reports, the race disparity audit, the david . the race disparity audit, the david lammy review. you have hundreds of credible people, but they didn't ask the people who know about these issues, they went and asked the people they knew would tell them the problem doesn't resist. there was no general attempt to make a substantial change. it is general attempt to make a substantial change. general attempt to make a substantial chane. , ., substantial change. it is not saying racism doesn't _

substantial change. it is not saying racism doesn't exist, _ substantial change. it is not saying racism doesn't exist, they - substantial change. it is not saying racism doesn't exist, they say - substantial change. it is not saying racism doesn't exist, they say veryj racism doesn't exist, they say very definitely that racism does exist but they are talking about structural racism and they say it is a complicated picture, that your social class, education, where you live play as much of a role as does your ethnic background? if live play as much of a role as does your ethnic background?— live play as much of a role as does your ethnic background? if you are sa in: your ethnic background? if you are saying that — your ethnic background? if you are saying that institutional _ your ethnic background? if you are saying that institutional racism - saying that institutional racism doesn't exist, what is being said, then you are saying racism doesn't exist. we have conflated prejudice, you don't like me, i don't like you racism which is woven into the social structures. racism which is woven into the socialstructures. if racism which is woven into the social structures. if you honestly look at this and don't find it, you are either a liar or a fool, because it is there. if you look at social class and family breakdown, of course they have an impact, but it understand social class and family breakdown, you have to understand racism. it is completely disingenuous.— racism. it is completely disingenuous. racism. it is completely disincenuous. ., , disingenuous. our home affairs editor were _ disingenuous. our home affairs editor were saying, _ disingenuous. our home affairs editor were saying, the - disingenuous. our home affairs editor were saying, the report | disingenuous. our home affairs i editor were saying, the report will have deepened divisions rather than

provided a report of substance that people can properly chew over, what do you feel about that? that people can properly chew over, what do you feel about that?— people can properly chew over, what do you feel about that? that was the --urose. if do you feel about that? that was the purpose- if you _ do you feel about that? that was the purpose. if you look _ do you feel about that? that was the purpose. if you look at _ do you feel about that? that was the purpose. if you look at what - do you feel about that? that was the purpose. if you look at what the - purpose. if you look at what the government has done since black lives matter. they said black lives matter was terrible, there is no problems in the schools, no problems in the curriculum, no problems with the police. we had a government pursuing one of the most racist agendas in my lifetime... min; pursuing one of the most racist agendas in my lifetime... why do you sa a agendas in my lifetime... why do you say a racist — agendas in my lifetime... why do you say a racist agenda? _ agendas in my lifetime... why do you say a racist agenda? have _ agendas in my lifetime... why do you say a racist agenda? have you - agendas in my lifetime... why do you say a racist agenda? have you seen i say a racist agenda? have you seen the immigration _ say a racist agenda? have you seen the immigration policy? _ say a racist agenda? have you seen the immigration policy? it - say a racist agenda? have you seen the immigration policy? it harks - the immigration policy? it harks back to the keep britain white. now we have a police force that will make it harder penalties for defacing a statue. this may be the most diverse government in the uk history, but in my lifetime, it is without doubt pursuing a racist

agenda and this report is just part of it. agenda and this report is 'ust part of it. . agenda and this report is 'ust part of it. , , ,., . , agenda and this report is 'ust part ofit. , , . of it. these might be policies you disauree of it. these might be policies you disagree with. — of it. these might be policies you disagree with, but _ of it. these might be policies you disagree with, but that _ of it. these might be policies you disagree with, but that doesn't i of it. these might be policies you - disagree with, but that doesn't mean to say they are racist? if disagree with, but that doesn't mean to say they are racist?— to say they are racist? if the government _ to say they are racist? if the government pursues - to say they are racist? if the | government pursues policies to say they are racist? if the - government pursues policies which rhetorically and practically make the lives of black and brown people worse, we can definitely say they are racist. we shouldn't be afraid to say this either. i am sorry. the track record is appalling in this report fits perfectly into it. if rare report fits perfectly into it. if we were to wind — report fits perfectly into it. if we were to wind back, _ report fits perfectly into it. if we were to wind back, say - report fits perfectly into it. if we were to wind back, say you - report fits perfectly into it. if we were to wind back, say you had been in charge of this report, what would you have love that? or are you saying we don't need any more reports, we need action? that saying we don't need any more reports, we need action? that is the ke thin , reports, we need action? that is the key thing. we _ reports, we need action? that is the key thing, we have _ reports, we need action? that is the key thing, we have all— reports, we need action? that is the key thing, we have all the _ key thing, we have all the information. there is countless evidence and it is there. the fact we are discussing whether institutional racism exists, is a problem because it does exist and a government seriously interested in theseissues government seriously interested in these issues willjust take the

government seriously interested in these issues will just take the fact that black people are more likely to die from covid, we don't need any more evidence. this report is part of a broader assault on race relations generally and anti—racists from this government and the aim of it is to go backwards, rather than foes. ,., ., it is to go backwards, rather than foes. ., ., ~' it is to go backwards, rather than foes. ., ., ,, ., ., ,, foes. good to talk to you. thank you for our foes. good to talk to you. thank you for yourtime- _ germany is suspending use of the oxford—astrazeneca covid vaccine for people under the age of 60 because of a very small number of cases of blood clots in people who've had the jab. both the eu and uk medicine regulators say the vaccine is safe, and the benefits outweigh the risks. it comes as europe faces a third wave of coronavirus. france's president macron is to give a speech later, as pressure grows on him to bring in tougher measures to halt the spread. nick beake reports. germany, like the rest of europe, is desperate to boost production of covid vaccines so the opening

of this brand—new biontech factory is welcome news. there is another blow for the astrazeneca shot. after resuming its use a fortnight ago, germany says it will stop giving it to the under 60s because of the risk of rare blood clots, even though astrazeneca and regulators say it is safe. translation: the vaccination is the most important tool - against the coronavirus. having several vaccines available is good and it is a great scientific achievement. we do not face the question astrazeneca or nothing, we have several vaccines available. daily vaccination rates in france are picking up, but not quickly enough to curb the third wave. intensive care doctors in paris are working flat out and some are calling for tougher covid restrictions. translation: we must prevent the virus spreading. _

we cannot do that with half measures. these 50 shades of measures. they are not working. in two weeks we still will not see any change so we must go back into lockdown and sadly this lockdown will have to last for several weeks. that is something president macron resisted at the start of the year and he insists he took the right decision. but tonight he will address the french people about how they will cope with the darkening picture. elsewhere in europe the outlook is equally bleak, poland has reported the highest daily deaths this year so far, the british strain of the virus is responsible for more than 80% of cases, there are no intensive care beds free within a 150 kilometre radius of the capital warsaw. hungary has been vaccinating faster than many other eu countries by using the chinese and russian vaccines, but it is suffering one of the worst infection rates in the world.

the virus is spreading across the continent. vaccination suspicion and shortages remain. mainland europe feels far away from the easing of restrictions the likes of the uk is now starting to enjoy. nick beake, bbc news, brussels. a little earlier i spoke to nick and he explained the issues facing europe's leaders. all eyes will be on president macron this evening, what new measures we might see to tackle the third wave in france, we shall see. it is worth stressing the contrast between the uk and mainland europe, where they are tightening measures rather than loosening them. in belgium the schools have shut again, in italy they are bringing in a five day quarantine for any arrivals from other eu countries. in germany, they are tightening restrictions and are beefing up the checks on land borders to make sure everyone arriving in the country has a negative covid test.

so that is the direction of travel. i think if we look for some glimmer of hope it would be in the form of vaccinations, the rates are getting a bit quicker in many eu countries. the eu officials in brussels have said today the target for the first three months of the year, delivering more than 100 million doses of the vaccine which lots of people may be surprised about bearing in mind the almighty row with astrazeneca and talk of legal challenges and possible export bans. i think we've seen less of that in the past few days and that is a reflection there is a resurgence of an emergency here, a health care emergency. i think it will be a difficult couple of months for europe. borisjohnson has said the impact here may be felt on the uk, talking in particular about new strains which may spread across the continents. also i think a word on british tourists later in the year, in theory, they may be able to leave the country. but bearing in mind what we're seeing in many famous and favourite eu spots,

i think the viability of those places at the moment, there are serious concerns about them. the headlines on bbc news... a major report says social class and family structure play a bigger part than race in determining people's lives in the uk. as germany limits its use of the astrazeneca vaccine to the over 60s, europe braces itself for a third covid wave. don'tjoin large groups and take your litter home — the message to people out enjoying the sun — as one council decides to close some of its parks. as people across england enjoy the sun for a third day after covid restrictions were eased, there is concern over large groups gathering. two parks have been closed in nottingham following what's being described as �*appalling scenes' of people drinking, fighting, and ignoring social distancing rules. our correspondent navtej johal

is at the the forest recreation ground and can tell us more. how is it looking? it is quite serene, even _ how is it looking? it is quite serene, even peaceful- how is it looking? it is quite serene, even peaceful at . how is it looking? it is quite | serene, even peaceful at the how is it looking? it is quite _ serene, even peaceful at the moment. we have seen around a dozen police officers so the police presence has been beefed up. you can understand, the last two evenings have seen some scenes across nottingham's parks the authorities did not wish to see. large groups of people drinking in one of the parks and monday night, scenes of people gathering together, flouting the social distancing guidelines, climbing trees and even brawling as well. we have now had a statement from the city council from nottingham saying they will be closing the arboretum, along with another local park. in that statement the council leader said, we regret having to take this action because everyone has been looking forward to the chance to visit our

parks. sadly the actions of a thoughtless minority has spoilt back. we will keep the situation under review and hope to open the parks as soon as possible. but this parks as soon as possible. but this park does remain open for now, but saw similar scenes last night and there wasjust behind saw similar scenes last night and there was just behind me, saw similar scenes last night and there wasjust behind me, a big clean—up operation early this morning as most of the ground was covered in litter.— a new study suggests the pfizer biontech covid—19 jab is "100% effective and well tolerated" among children aged 12 to 15. pfizer said it now plans to seek approval for use of the vaccine in this age group from regulators around the world. our health correspondent jim reed told us more: pfizer have been trialling their vaccine on children and this is the first study results we have seen back from children. very positive results, so 100% effective at stopping covid in the 12 to 15 age group. they studied just over 2000

children. pfizersay group. they studied just over 2000 children. pfizer say they have vaccinations can begin in the united states of school age children just before the next school year, so in september. interesting because astrazeneca have been running a similar study in the uk to see if thatis similar study in the uk to see if that is the case. some very interesting ethical issues, children are not particularly affected by covid so the reason to vaccinate them would not be to protect children from the disease. it is transmission? _ children from the disease. it is transmission? that _ children from the disease. it is transmission? that is - children from the disease. it is transmission? that is right, i children from the disease. it is transmission? that is right, it| children from the disease. it is. transmission? that is right, it is to sto it transmission? that is right, it is to stop it in _ transmission? that is right, it is to stop it in the _ transmission? that is right, it is to stop it in the general- transmission? that is right, it is - to stop it in the general community. so we need to come to a decision as a society whether it is something we want or need to do. the archbishop of canterbury has addressed for the first time the remark made by the duchess of sussex that she got married three days before the royal wedding. during the interview with oprah winfrey — broadcast earlier this month — meghan said she and harry had a secret marriage ceremony with justin welby in their �*backyard'. our royal correspondent nicholas witchelljoins me now.

what did the archbishop have to say? this is an interview he is giving to an italian newspaper and he was asked about this claim by the duchess of sussex and he wouldn't go into detail with the interactions he had with harry and meghan. but he simply said the legal wedding was the one that took place on the saturday. so what this amounts to i think is a misunderstanding on the part of the duchess of sussex. it was established just after she made this claim that what occurred a couple of days beforehand was an exchange of vows between her and harry, but that was not actually a marriage. we have got to remember a marriage, if you like, a legal contract and you have got to have witnesses to it, the signing of the register. that is why it becomes a legally binding contract. that is what happened, they became husband and wife in the ceremony that so many around the world witnessed in

saint george's cattle in 2018. her claim that they married in private, in secret a couple of days beforehand is wrong and it is a misunderstanding on her part. it wasn't the only misunderstanding in the oprah interview. so too was the suggestion that her son archie was unfairly denied the rank and style of prince for some improper reason. that is not the case because he is not entitled to that because of his position within the royal family and within the line of succession. you have got to remember the whole direction of travel within the royal family and a direction of travel will accelerate once the prince of wales becomes king is to have a smaller royalfamily, wales becomes king is to have a smaller royal family, fewer people with the rank of prince or princess. it would generally be thought of as an obstacle, a significant encumbrance to somebody leading the kind of normal life that harry and meghan have opted for themselves and they say they want for their son. so

a misunderstanding and certainly very much a misunderstanding in terms of the suggestion they were married in secret a couple of days beforehand. the marriage was in saint george's chapel. so beforehand. the marriage was in saint george's chapel.— saint george's chapel. so the archbishop — saint george's chapel. so the archbishop of _ saint george's chapel. so the archbishop of canterbury - saint george's chapel. so the archbishop of canterbury has| saint george's chapel. so the - archbishop of canterbury has said this to make it very clear he did not do anything illegal, he followed proper procedures. but i suppose the effect of his comments is to throw attention once again on that interview and quite inaccurate some of the comments made by the duchess of the comments made by the duchess of sussex where? i of the comments made by the duchess of sussex where?— of sussex where? i think that is the issue, of sussex where? i think that is the issue. yes- — of sussex where? i think that is the issue. yes- had _ of sussex where? i think that is the issue, yes. had she _ of sussex where? i think that is the issue, yes. had she properly - issue, yes. had she properly understood what was happening? did she have a proper understanding of the life that she was marrying into? if she could get this wrong, may she have misunderstood other aspects of it? i am sure the archbishop didn't want to talk about it, he was asked about it in the context of an interview with an italian newspaper. but it had been established at the

time this claim emerged in the oprah interview, that it could not be correct, you cannotjust marry somebody in the presence of a priest, never mind who the priest is, albeit it is the archbishop of canterbury. that does not make it legal. in the archbishop, when asked by the newspaper, was at pains to point that out. the underlying issue that it draws attention to is the extent to which meghan may have misunderstood events and just been getting them wrong and telling an inaccurate version of actually what did occur. a , inaccurate version of actually what did occur. n, , ., inaccurate version of actually what did occur. , ., . ., did occur. many thanks. nicholas witchell there. _ did occur. many thanks. nicholas witchell there. news _ did occur. many thanks. nicholas witchell there. news to - did occur. many thanks. nicholas witchell there. news to bring - did occur. many thanks. nicholas| witchell there. news to bring you from the european medicines agency. germany has suspended the oxford astrazeneca vaccine to people under the age of 60. the european medicines agency has been reviewing the very rare cases, as it calls

them, of unusual blood clots. and it says the review has not identified any specific risk factors such as age, gender ora any specific risk factors such as age, gender or a previous medical history of clotting disorders for very rare events. so it says the causal link with the vaccine is not proven, but it goes on to say it is possible and further analysis is continuing. it sounds like an interim finding by the european medicines agency. when stressing the world health organization, the ema up world health organization, the ema up until now and uk regulators have all said the oxford vaccine is safe and the benefits of taking the vaccine outweigh the risks. the metropolitan police commissioner, cressida dick, has told the bbc she feels people in responsible positions should "stop and think" before passing judgement on actions taken by the force. yesterday, a report from the inspectorate of constabulary found officers acted "appropriately" at the vigil for sarah everard in south

london earlier this month. speaking on radio 4's today programme, the commissioner said senior public figures expressed opinions before knowing the facts about the vigil. people in public life, people in responsible positions should stop and think before theyjudge, whoever they may be, and as sir tom says, broadly speaking, a police officer is entitled to public support... this is the author of the report? absolutely. the chief inspector of constabulary. so people should stop and think because if they comment without knowing the facts, they may, and i suggest on this occasion some people did, affect public confidence in the police service inappropriately and, secondly, affect the officer's confidence about volunteering for the same duty in the next instance if they are going to be criticised even when they've done a really good job. the metropolitan police

commisioner was also asked about the duchess of cambridge's decision to attend the vigil for sarah everard. cressida dick said the duchess was carrying out her royal duties. a, i think it's worth looking at, as an example ofjust how strongly people felt, what she said about her attendance there. b, she's in the course of her duties, she's working, so of course... really, it was legal for her because you think she was there for work? let me go back, at that point, people had a whole series of potentially reasonable excuses for being away from home. we didn't all have them for everything. i've picked out one that may well apply to her. but let's be clear, there was a very, very calm vigil that she attended where lots and lots of people came... but you have said that it was illegal. no, the vigil itself started off in a socially distanced manner. i don't understand because you have said yourself you would have attended the vigil had it been legal.

so it was illegal, from your perspective, including when the duchess attended? i think you need to go back to the beginning. what we knew and what matt parr said was that it was quite clear that whatever the organisers wanted to arrange, the numbers were going to be overwhelming, there was not an ability in the long run to be able to keep this socially distanced or in any sense covid safe or strictly legal. a school where a teacher showed pupils a cartoon of the prophet muhammad is to be the subject of an independent investigation, the trust which runs it has announced. protests were held at batley grammar school in west yorkshire after the image depicting the founder of islam was used in a lesson on the 22nd of march. a staff member was later suspended after complaints were made. in a statement, batley multi academy trust said the investigation would review how the materials which caused offence were used, and make recommendations for the schools religious

studies curriculam. official figures show the uk economy suffered a steeper than expected contraction during the first coronavirus lockdown — but also bounced back more strongly than previously thought at the end of 2020. the office for national statistics said gross domestic product — a measure of the size of the economy — shrank by 19.5% between april and june last year. that's higher than the initial estimate of 19%. the ons said the economy picked up later in the year — rebounding by 16.9% in the third quarter. for the year as a whole, uk gdp dropped by 9.8% — the worst annual performance for more than 300 years. the pandemic has caused big losses in the uk insurance market. lloyds of london reported a £900 million pound pre—tax loss, compared with a two point

five billion pound profit in 2019. the chief executive, john neal, says covid—related claims could reach around six billion pounds. shares in the international takeaway food service, deliveroo, have plummeted following its stock market debut in london. at one stage, the share price was down about 30%. in recent weeks, a number of high—profile fund managers said they wouldn't be buying the shares, voicing concerns over the working conditions of its riders and a lack of rights for shareholders. the deliveroo share sale is london's biggest stock market launch for a decade. the sharp fall on its first day of trading is a blow to the uk's ambitions to persuade more big tech companies to list in the uk. now it's time for a look at the weather with darren bett. hello, there. not as much blue sky around today but it's another warm day for the time of year for most of england and wales. 23—24 across eastern parts of england. cool of the scotland and northern ireland, more cloud around, but not much rain left over, it's been a drier day. rain still patchy here and there and it will ease off overnight as the band of cloud continues to work down across northern england towards the midlands.

clearer skies and cold air coming into northern scotland, could see temperatures close to freezing, but milder elsewhere and probably dry by the morning, but a grey start through parts of the midlands and northern england. the cloud should break up and it will be a dry day over the uk with spells of sunshine as well. worth looking at the winds, we don't have the warmer south—westerly wind, it is an easterly wind and that means it will be noticeably colder across northern and eastern parts of the uk with the highest temperatures of 18—19 in the south—west.

hello, this is bbc news. the headlines... a major report says social class and family structure play a bigger part than race in determining people's lives in the uk.

the report isn't saying racism doesn't exist. we found anecdotal evidence of this. however, what we did find was evidence of actual institutional racism, no, that wasn't there, we didn't find that in our report. the prime minister says the government will assesses the implications of the controversial report. but campaigners say they feel �*deeply�* let down. don'tjoin large groups — and take your litter home — the message to people out enjoying the sun, as one council decides to close some of its parks. as germany limits its use of the astrazeneca vaccine to the over 60s, europe braces itself for a third covid wave the last day of shielding in england and wales — we hearfrom one man about his year of isolation. and it's just two weeks until outdoor visitor attractions like zoos and theme parks can reopen in england after a tough year for the industry. sport now, and for a full round up, from the bbc sport centre,

here's ben croucher. good afternoon. chelsea women are around 15 minutes away from reaching the semi finals of the champions league for the third time in their history. they took a 2—1 lead into their second leg against wolfsburg and were 2—0 up by half time thanks to a pernille harder penalty and sam kerr strike. manchester city have it all to do against barcelona. they're trailing 3—0 from the first leg. that match kicks off at 4pm and manager gareth taylor isn't phased by the task at hand. i think we proved that we can score goals this season. we are right up there in goals scored and we are the first team in the league to 50 goals so we are more than capable. we created a lot of chances against barcelona. we have given ourselves an uphill

task but in terms of me being confident enough to say that we can achieve it, yeah. is it going to be difficult? of course, but we will be going for it. after three and a half years in charge of arsenal women, joe montemurro will step down at the end of the season to spend more time with his family. the australian took over in november 2017, winning the women's super league 18 months later. he said it was the hardest professional decision of his life and said the focus was ensuring arsenalfinish in as high a position as possible. they're currently 11th in the wsl. gareth southgate will be leading england into the euros this summer. his priority tonight will be keeping england on track to reach next year's world cup. they've won two from two in qualifying so far and face poland at wembley. they have rotated players for games against san marino and albania so will they do the same tonight? they are all available as far as we are concerned. we have managed the

team not only through the matches but also the training sessions and we've been very cautious with the load they've had, so we have got to balance the freshness, most countries have taken a similar slot on the games. we have got to look at the best team to win this game and we are well prepared for it. scotland take on the faroe islands looking for their first win after two draws so far. stephen davis meanwhile will overtake peter shilton as the uk's most capped international when northern ireland host bulgaria. it'll be the 126th time he's represented his country. helen glover says she hopes to come back from next week's european rowing championships with some success to share with her children after being named in the british team. glover only returned to full time

training three months ago after stepping away from the sport after rio 2016. the two time olympic champion will compete in the women's pair alongside polly swann. you're up to date. we'll have more a little later on. the uk's new trading relationship with the european union might only be a few months old — but some businesses are struggling to adjust to the new commercial landscape — outside the customs union and single market. our economics correspondent darshini david has been investigating the impact of brexit — three months on. over 90 days now, since britain began a new year with new trading arrangements with the eu. with traffic from dover only 7% below the level it was before the pandemic, and only a small proportion of hauliers still struggling with paperwork, in calais they say everything is running smoothly.

it's working good. we've slowed down traffic sometimes a little, french customs asking for paperwork. but it is nearly according to what we were expecting. but what does it take to get things into those lorries? arla is the uk's biggest cooperative of dairy farmers. it imports and exports. for arla alone it is about 30,000 extra documents a year. vets needing to sign some of those documents. some of those documents needing to be ready for border inspections as well. and if you put all of that together, that places quite a significant administrative burden on our business. fresh food exports from the uk to the eu almost halved injanuary as companies struggled with new formalities amidst a pandemic lockdown. meat processors say that while some issues have been sorted, they fear sales could be 20% lower, permanently. many of those involved in food

and farming are calling for more procedures to be put online and checks to be streamlined. they fear the process is all a bit one—sided because controls on imports coming into the uk have been delayed. they fear that that is not focusing minds in brussels. i think it is only at that point when they are confronted with the same bureaucratic complicated system that everyone is going to say, actually, we need to work together to find a better way of doing this. because this is just adding a cost which ultimately the consumer is going to pay. those producing the meat are clamouring for more clarity and help, too. there is a cost to farmers at the moment and there is friction and there are delays. and there are significant issues to be overcome. how responsive is the government, the uk government, to what you are saying right now? i have requested a meeting with sir david frost but as yet, i have not been able to see him face to face. which remains an urgent request on our behalf.

over 40% of uk trade goes to the eu. a relationship that can't be ignored. the government says it is engaging with industry to counter any challenges and provide more resources. it is working, too, to deliver trade deals elsewhere. but those might take a while longer. dharshini david, bbc news. today is the last day that 4 million people who've been shielding in england and wales will have to stay at home. but they are still being advised to minimise social contacts, to work from home where possible, and to stay at a distance from other people. england's deputy chief medical officerjenny harries has provided an update for those who are currently shielding. here's what she said. so the good news for those people who have been shielding is the rates of transmission of the disease in our communities has dropped very low, well below the rates, we are almost down to where we were last autumn. and so the likelihood of an individual actually coming

into contact with the virus has reduced considerably. so now is the right time to be lifting our shielding advice. for the time being, it's an end to shielding but ijust want to clarify that. obviously, we are always keeping an eye out to see what's happening to the virus, looking out for new variants, we are watching how the vaccine programme is going. and it's really important for those people who have been shielding that they know we are still able to contact them in the future should we need to give them any particular specialist advice. but for the time being, it's paused, people can resume normal life and that is our advice, but we would still urge two things... one is, make sure they have both their vaccinations and the second one is obviously, we give special guidance and they should continue to take extra special care so observe all the distancing, use face coverings, go out at times when it's less busy. that sort of thing.

that was jenny harries there. the green party has launched its local election campaign with a pledge to build a green recovery in every community across the country. party co—leaderjonathan bartley said he wants a �*green recovery�* from the coronavirus pandemic that�*ll tackle climate change and reduce inequality. we wa nt we want to build on the success of 2019 in the local elections, we more than doubled the number of councillors in one election last time and went from being the opposition in several councils to playing a part in running 17. since then we have had climate emergency motions passed up and down the country, brighton and hove we are now running, we have invested £27 million on climate emergency here, and norwich is running our retrofitting of homes, so to get more councillors elected in significant numbers, getting breakthroughs in places like burnley, councils for the first time in mansfield, may be being the biggest party in bristol, right across the country making progress in these elections. people know that the vote will deliver green councils

and will deliver climate action so we are hopeful of making significant gains. we are hopeful of making significant rains. ., ., , , , we are hopeful of making significant rains. ., ., ,, , ., ., gains. environmental issues are a big priority _ gains. environmental issues are a big priority for — gains. environmental issues are a big priority for the _ gains. environmental issues are a big priority for the electorate - gains. environmental issues are a big priority for the electorate at i big priority for the electorate at the moment, how can you seize on that feeling?— that feeling? there is a feeling durin: that feeling? there is a feeling during lockdown, _ that feeling? there is a feeling during lockdown, everyone - that feeling? there is a feeling during lockdown, everyone gotj that feeling? there is a feeling i during lockdown, everyone got a glimpse that something different was possible, in tragic circumstances, but we realised we could take cars off the road and pay people�*s wages. businesses if supported properly could transition and operate in different ways, the formula 1 racing team coming forward saying they could make ventilators, and many people realising a different way of living and working is possible, so we want to see more flexible working and better public transport systems that are affordable and will move people around to the places they want to go. we want to look at resilient local economies that will withstand the future pandemics which we are told will be coming down the line, so in a sense tackling the

covid crisis goes hand—in—hand with tackling the environmental crisis. do you think the government is doing enough? ida do you think the government is doing enou~h? ., ., ., ., �* enough? no where near enough and i'm worried we will— enough? no where near enough and i'm worried we will be _ enough? no where near enough and i'm worried we will be a _ enough? no where near enough and i'm worried we will be a laughing _ enough? no where near enough and i'm worried we will be a laughing stock- worried we will be a laughing stock when it comes to the conference later this year when we are supposed to be leading the nation, but we are dragging ourfeet over a new to be leading the nation, but we are dragging our feet over a new coal mine, investing £12 billion per year in fossilfuel subsidies, mine, investing £12 billion per year infossilfuel subsidies, £27 in fossil fuel subsidies, £27 billion infossilfuel subsidies, £27 billion in a road building programme, ata billion in a road building programme, at a time and we should be looking at completely new models and ways of building our transport policy around the country. that and ways of building our transport policy around the country.- policy around the country. that is the co-leader _ policy around the country. that is the co-leader of _ policy around the country. that is the co-leader of the _ policy around the country. that is the co-leader of the green - policy around the country. that is the co-leader of the green party. in the us, the trial of the police officer accused of murdering george floyd has heard evidence from a teenager who filmed the incident. darnella frazier was testifying on the second day of the trial of derek chauvin in minneapolis. our washington correspondent lebo diseko is following the case. the prosecution wants jurors to see this case through the eyes of people at the scene.

among them, a teenager who had been on her way to the shops. it was her mobile phone footage that was seen around the world. a minor at the time, her face was not shown in court. her testimony, the first time race has been mentioned in this trial. when i look at george floyd i look at my dad, i look at my brother, i look at my cousins, my uncles. because they are all black. i have a black father, i have a black brother, i have black friends. and i look at that and i look at how that could have been one of them. there�*s been nights i�*ve stayed up apologising... ..and apologising to george floyd for not doing more. in total there were four witnesses who were under age at the time, too young to be shown on camera,

yet witnesses in a murder trial. the youngest was just nine years old. how did it affect you? i was sad and kind of mad. and tell us, why were you sad and mad? cos it feels like he was stopping him breathing and was kind - of like hurting him. last to take the stand, a minneapolis firefighter, seen here trying to get officers to allow her to perform first aid. trained in cpr, she said she felt totally distressed at not being allowed to help. in my memory i tried different tactics of calm and reasoning. i tried to be assertive. i pled and was desperate. the testimony in court has been visceral and raw, witnesses describing how they felt powerless to help mr floyd as he lay on the ground here.

the job for the defence will be to get the jury to put that emotion aside — a task that may be challenging. lebo diseko, bbc news, minneapolis. in the next hour we�*ll be going live to the court proceedings. the headlines on bbc news... a major report says social class and family structure play a bigger part than race in determining people�*s lives in the uk. as germany limits its use of the astrazeneca vaccine to the over 60s, europe braces itself for a third covid wave. don�*tjoin large groups — and take your litter home — the message to people out enjoying the sun — as one council decides to close some of its parks. it is three months since the uk left the eu�*s customs union and single market and we are taking a look at how that is affecting different

businesses. joining me now is matthew hall who owns butlers farmhouse cheeses which is based in lancashire. good afternoon. how have the last three months been for you, what changes have you seen to your business?— changes have you seen to your business? ,., ., ., ., ., ., , business? good afternoon. the last three months _ business? good afternoon. the last three months have _ business? good afternoon. the last three months have been _ business? good afternoon. the last three months have been very - business? good afternoon. the last three months have been very much| three months have been very much like the nine months before it for ourselves in terms of it is a roller—coaster and a seesaw all at once. we are a cheesemaker in rural lancashire. may be 5% of our stock is exported abroad so the direct implications have not had a massive impact on what we do on a day—to—day basis but what we have seen is a dramatic change in the dynamics between ourselves and the retailers, because there is a supply challenge for many businesses importing food products to the uk and that has brought about an opportunity for farmhouse makers like us who have

jesusin farmhouse makers like us who have jesus in the uk where we can feel the gap —— who have cheeses in the uk where we can fill the gap. 50 it uk where we can fill the gap. so it has benefited _ uk where we can fill the gap. so it has benefited your— uk where we can fill the gap. so it has benefited your business? the | has benefited your business? the trend to buy _ has benefited your business? tue: trend to buy local is a big trend that we are seeing at the moment, and the changes we are seeing with brexit have played into that friend a little bit. with people looking to try and get some security oversupply and there is no reason why cheese has to be bought from france because there are great cheeses made in the uk. we have seen an opportunity to play into this, absolutely. lise uk. we have seen an opportunity to play into this, absolutely.— play into this, absolutely. use of the last three _ play into this, absolutely. use of the last three months _ play into this, absolutely. use of the last three months had - play into this, absolutely. use of the last three months had been l play into this, absolutely. use of| the last three months had been a roller—coaster, like the previous nine months, but covid has also played a part? tt nine months, but covid has also played a part?— nine months, but covid has also played a part? it has absolutely. i want to give _

played a part? it has absolutely. i want to give a _ played a part? it has absolutely. i want to give a shout _ played a part? it has absolutely. i want to give a shout out - played a part? it has absolutely. i want to give a shout out to - played a part? it has absolutely. i want to give a shout out to our i want to give a shout out to our people because it has been a massive yearfor people because it has been a massive year for us and people because it has been a massive yearfor us and our people because it has been a massive year for us and our business people because it has been a massive yearfor us and our business is built on product and people. their ability to adapt and pivot in the last nine months have come about with lots of new products and innovations, being able to get cheese directly from the farm to somebody�*s door with the online shopping experience is now a new trend and something we have managed to pivot into in the last nine months. something i think will be here to stay, consumers are seeking out companies and businesses that share their ethics and values. trier? share their ethics and values. very interesting- _ share their ethics and values. very interesting. letterboxed deliveries of cheeses. : , ~ interesting. letterboxed deliveries of cheeses. : , . :, of cheeses. absolutely. we are makinu of cheeses. absolutely. we are makin: it of cheeses. absolutely. we are making it here _ of cheeses. absolutely. we are making it here on _ of cheeses. absolutely. we are making it here on the - of cheeses. absolutely. we are making it here on the form - of cheeses. absolutely. we are making it here on the form andj making it here on the form and apportioning it up and putting it into a box and it is going straight to somebody�*s door. as retail becomes more mainstream, and consumers are looking for special and different products, they are coming online. one of the big

changes we have seen in consumerism, people looking for less of that over the last nine months, and products with purpose, as i say, to be able to go into things like cheese being gifted a lot more, as i say. [30 to go into things like cheese being gifted a lot more, as i say.- gifted a lot more, as i say. do you see more — gifted a lot more, as i say. do you see more changes _ gifted a lot more, as i say. do you see more changes down _ gifted a lot more, as i say. do you see more changes down the - gifted a lot more, as i say. do you see more changes down the line? | gifted a lot more, as i say. do you| see more changes down the line? i think where we are at the moment is where we are going to be long—term, and there is a purpose to products and there is a purpose to products and an opportunity to create a whole eating occasion around them. so this can take your product into a brand—new space and i think consumers are looking to celebrate going forward with things that taste good because at the end of the day when life is tough if you put something that tastes amazing in your mouth that will bring a smile to yourface. your mouth that will bring a smile to your face-— to your face. indeed it is. thanks forjoining _ to your face. indeed it is. thanks forjoining us- —

the bbc�*s china correspondent john sudworth has relocated from beijing to taiwan, following pressure and threats from the chinese authorities. in the wake of his departure, chinese state media outlets are continuing to run stories attacking john for his coverage of xinjiang and the origins of the coronavirus. i spoke to him a short while ago. it�*ll come as no surprise to you and probably many of our viewers who may have seen my reports over recent years that we have been facing this kind of pressure because of our coverage of subjects and stories that china doesn�*t want us to cover, at least not in the independent way that we have. but in recent months there has been an intensifying propaganda campaign targeting, notjust the bbc, but me personally and my work in particular. there have been legal threats and as well as that,

an intensifying attempt to obstruct and harass us whenever and wherever we film. and as a result of these rising risks and increasing difficulties, the decision was made that after tolerating it for so long we should relocate. it is important to mention, reeta, this is notjust the bbc, it is part of a wider pattern. this shift from beijing to taipei is now sadly a fairly well trodden route, there are other members from other foreign organisations who have gone before me. american journalists have been expelled from beijing over the past year or so. australian media now has no reporters for any of its mainstream newspapers and broadcasters left in the country, so the space for independentjournalism is narrowing in china and of course the worrying thing about that is it is happening at precisely the time when the world really needs to know what is happening there more than ever. the bbc has issued a statement onjohn�*s relocation from beijing to taiwan...

it�*s less than two weeks until outdoor visitor attractions like zoos and theme parks can reopen in england — and it�*s been a tough year for the industry. across the uk, figures from the association of leading visitor attractions show some museums were down to 10% of the attendance they�*d had the previous year. our business correspondent sarah corker reports. with more than 1,400 animals to feed every single day, including alex the hungry giraffe, staff at knowsley safari have been kept busy throughout lockdown. but running costs have remained high, at a time when the site has been closed to visitors for many months. thankfully there have been some good business loan schemes to help us out and government has tried to make it possible for businesses

to keep going. it has been difficult and painful and it will be years to come to recover from this. new figures showjust how damaging the pandemic has been for the tourism industry. visits to the uk�*s big tourist spots were down 70% last year. indoor venues were hit the hardest. outdoor attractions and countryside locations fared much better. overall, london still saw the biggest visitorfigures, with the tate modern topping the list. and for the first time, two gardens appeared in the top ten most visited. kew gardens and rhs garden wisley. now there is a road out of lockdown there has been a surge in bookings as we all start to plan our trips this summer and open—air attractions like this one will be among the first to open in just two weeks�* time. and alex here in the giraffe enclosure is expected to be popular with visitors in the months ahead. from april the 12th, open—air sites including zoos and theme parks can reopen. nothing has been done on the hoof.

it has taken on months of planning. there will be fewer people because we will limit the numbers and you have social distancing to manage walking around, but in reality the experience for the visitor is exactly the same as it was pre—pandemic. with the ongoing uncertainty around international travel, staff are expecting big numbers through the gates. we will have time slots and designated points to go around the safari drive. the restaurant will be closed and things like that and i think that will make a different experience, but people need to be out and about and embracing nature.

so, as lockdown eases and many of us have an appetite for new experiences and the great outdoors, businesses are hoping they will be able to claw back those covid losses. sarah corker, bbc news. now it�*s time for a look at the weather. it is another warm day for the time of year across much of england and wales. we don�*t have the blue skies that we had yesterday. quite a bit of a saharan dust in our air and there is also some high cloud around too. you can see that on the satellite picture. that has produced one or two spots of rain. most of the rain has come from that cloud. it has been very wet in the highlands of scotland. to the north, we have got colder air moving southwards over the next few days. temperatures this afternoon lower than they were yesterday in scotland and northern ireland. 23, 2a across eastern parts of england.

again, colder than yesterday. some low cloud in cornwall. that will push away and overnight we will see that band of cloud moving down away from scotland, into northern england, down towards the midlands. with the clearer skies, temperatures could be close to freezing in scotland. milder elsewhere and dry as well because this area of high pressure is building down across the uk but at the same time it is dragging that colder air from the north and we start to pick up a wind off the north sea. a great start across northern england and the midlands. that cloud should thin and break up and it is going to be a dry day with spells of sunshine. we don�*t have that warmer south—westerly wind any more, instead it is a north—easterly or even an easterly wind. more of a breeze on thursday. and a significantly colder day across northern and eastern parts of the uk. highest temperatures towards the south—west. by the time we get to good friday, we�*re all in that colder air.

it looks like it�*s going to be a dry day. some sunshine at times. those temperatures are no better than 13 or 1a degrees. and down those north sea coasts, struggling to get into double figures. over easter weekend, it will remain cold, and by monday, some wintry showers around as well. we are starting on a dry note because of that area of high pressure. on easter sunday, that weatherfront moves down across the uk bringing rain and behind that the air coming from the arctic, and it is that that will bring the cold air and the risk of some snow.

this is bbc news with reeta chakrabarti. the headlines: a major report says social class and family structure play a bigger part than race in determining people�*s lives in the uk. the report is saying racism doesn�*t exist. we found anecdotal evidence of this. however, what we did find was evidence of actual institutional racism, no, that wasn�*t there, we didn�*t find that in our report. the prime minister says the government will assesses the implications of the controversial report. but campaigners say they feel �*deeply�* let down. don�*tjoin large groups and take your litter home — the message to people out enjoying the sun as one council decides to close some of its parks after what it described as "appalling scenes" yesterday. the european medicines agency meets to discuss the astrazeneca vaccine

as germany limits its use of the vaccine to the over 60s. the last day of shielding in england and wales — we hearfrom one man about his year of isolation. and it�*s just two weeks until outdoor visitor attractions like zoos and theme parks can reopen in england after a tough year for the industry. good afternoon. race and racism have become less important factors in explaining social disparities in the uk — that�*s the controversial conclusion of a major review commissioned by the government. the commission on race and ethnic disparities, set up after the black lives matter protests, found that social class and family structure played a bigger role in determining people�*s lives. the commission says concerns that the uk is institutionally

racist are not borne out by the evidence — but that overt racism remains. this afternoon the prime minister, borisjohnson has said "it is now right that the government considers their recommendations in detail, and assesses the implications for future government policy." but campaigners say they feel �*deeply, massively let down�* by the report — and that the government did not have the confidence of black and minority ethnic communities. greg mackenzie reports. last summer�*s black lives matter protests were some of the biggest seen in the uk. black lives matter! hundreds of thousands of people lined the streets up and down the country calling for change. it was triggered by the killing of george floyd in america. the government reacted and commissioned a report looking into racial disparities, which it has published today. no—one in the report is saying racism doesn�*t exist. we found anecdotal evidence of this. however, what we did find

was the evidence of actual institutional racism, no. that wasn�*t there, we didn�*t find that in our report. the report concludes race and racism have become less important factors in explaining social disparities. but its author admits while racism does exist in this country, the uk is not institutionally racist, which has angered some race campaigners. the two people appointed to lead an independent commission were on record denying structural racism and institutional racism 15 years ago. so it's no surprise that we have tony sewell saying he didn't find any evidence of institutional racism. well, he denied its existence 15 years ago. he is hardly going to change his mind. the commission has made 2a recommendations, which include the acronym bame, that is black, asian and minority ethnic, should no longer be used. other recommendations include creating a police workforce that represents the communities they serve.

and increasing the legitimacy and accountability of stop and search through body—worn video cameras. the prime minister asked them to do this report because although he thinks that there is a good deal of progress that has been made in recent years, there is a lot more to do. and so we will be listening and reading very carefully the recommendations from the commissioners about what more the country needs to do to tackle inequalities. the commission believes that if these recommendations are implemented, it will give a further burst of momentum to the story of the uk�*s progress to a successful, multiethnic and multicultural community. but some race campaigners believe we are some way off actually achieving this. greg mckenzie, bbc news. a little earlier i spoke to our home editor mark easton about how the report has been received.

if the government was hoping that this commission report was going to lead to a kind of settled view on the question of racism in the uk, frankly it was always going to be a struggle, because if you recall going back to the black lives matter protests, the prime minister at that time made it clear, he said what i really want to do as prime minister is change the narrative so we stop the sense of victimisation and discrimination. so antiracism groups were already a bit concerned. then his policy chief, munira mirza, was involved, it was reported she was involved in a sort of appointing the commission and yet she was somebody who�*d said the institution of racism was a perception rather than a reality, the antiracism had become weaponised across the political spectrum and then we see the appointment of tony sewell which actually led some antiracism activists to consider seeking a judicial review. because they felt he had already made his mind up about institutional racism. you know, the concern is that the accusation that the report is sort of saying what ministers want to hear

and it was hand—picked, whatever the truth about that, it will have some traction. and actually, i think this report has a lot of common sense in it, to be honest. whatever the committee finds, whether it is right or wrong and indeed whether the commission itself acted entirely impartially is not really the point. the problem is that people willjust say, this wasn�*t independent. and that will potentially just serve to deepen division and distrust. we can speak now to the space scientist and co—presenter of bbc four�*s the sky at night, dr maggie aderin—pocock, she is also a member of the commission on race and ethnic disparities. good afternoon to you. you will have heard some of the reaction to the report, some of it quite bitter criticism, how do you react to that? on the report, our key goal was to

get the discussion going. base the discussion on evidence. race is a very emotive subject, there is no getting past that. at the same time, by gathering and analysing the evidence, we can try and get an understanding of where the disparities lie and what lies behind those disparities. i and others came to the report with an open mind. we looked at the evidence to find where the disparities wear and try to dig down into why these disparities were occurring. every challenge is multifaceted, there is no simple answer. racism does play a part in this, but there were other factors at play as well. this, but there were other factors at play as well-— at play as well. what is particularly _ at play as well. what is particularly infuriating l at play as well. what is - particularly infuriating critics is the idea that institutional racism does not exist. clearly the report says there is a overt racism, but institutions in the uk are not

necessarily racist?— institutions in the uk are not necessarily racist? through the re ort, necessarily racist? through the reort, i necessarily racist? through the report. i don't— necessarily racist? through the report, i don't think _ necessarily racist? through the report, i don't think we - necessarily racist? through the report, i don't think we were i necessarily racist? through the - report, i don't think we were saying report, i don�*t think we were saying there was no institutionally racist organisations out there. the remit of the report was to look at data gathered from certain areas. we can�*t cover everything. in the areas we look, we didn�*t find institutional racism. the problem is, institutional racism is a very emotive word but what we are trying to do is get a scientific basis, and understanding, see with the data indicates that here there is institutional racism. in the past we have seen that, we have seen that in organisations but the uk has changed radically. we are not there yet but we have changed radically. no one is saying racism doesn�*t exist, not saying racism doesn�*t exist, not saying institutional racism doesn�*t exist, but in our work, we didn�*t find it out there. exist, but in our work, we didn't find it out there.— exist, but in our work, we didn't find it out there. what perplexes a lot of people. _ find it out there. what perplexes a lot of people, this _ find it out there. what perplexes a lot of people, this report - find it out there. what perplexes a lot of people, this report was - lot of people, this report was commissioned after the black lives protests, which were protests at

institutional racism, racism, inequalities, disparities. for people than to have a report that is largely positive coming out of that protest feels wrong? you largely positive coming out of that protest feels wrong?— protest feels wrong? you say it is [an el protest feels wrong? you say it is largely positive. _ protest feels wrong? you say it is largely positive, but _ protest feels wrong? you say it is largely positive, but some - protest feels wrong? you say it is largely positive, but some of- protest feels wrong? you say it is largely positive, but some of the| largely positive, but some of the statistics in the report are quite mind—boggling. 2a times more likely to be murdered if you are aged between 16 and 2a and you are a black guy. it is not a positive result and that is one of the things we are discovering. one of the things we generally find is the only hay the negative side. by mentioning the positive side, i think people are shocked. it is important to mention the positive side because we have many kids growing up in the uk who are thinking, i will never achieve anything. that show the positive, but also work on the negative and make it better. i think thatis negative and make it better. i think that is definitely the key. iurrui’hat that is definitely the key. what would you _ that is definitely the key. what would you say _ that is definitely the key. what would you say to _ that is definitely the key. what would you say to people - that is definitely the key. what would you say to people who would say yes, there has been progress

made. i think you highlight education particularly, where you say there are children of certain ethnic groups who are doing better than their white counterparts. what would you say to people who say, you looked at large organisations, big establishments where people of colour are not in positions of power, they are not even in the middle ranks, they are kept out of these institutions and they would say to you, this is the reason for viewing your findings sceptically? i think the key is to look at the report as a whole and look at it in detail. if you look at some of the statistics of the under 30—year—olds, if you look at the quality of play, the racial pay gap, people in that age group are on parity, there is no race pay gap. but if you look through the eight ranks, then you do find these inequalities. it is working out why

these inequalities occur. it is not just taking the headline, but looking behind the headline and looking behind the headline and looking at what is causing these. the socio— economic, geography and different factors playing a part. we are trying to make policy changes that tackle those residuals. we are not saying that everything is fine and dandy, we are saying let�*s focus on the positives, that also focus on the negatives and do something about them, but learn from the positives at the same time. tqm. them, but learn from the positives at the same time.— them, but learn from the positives at the same time. 0k, thank you very much for your— at the same time. 0k, thank you very much for your time. _ germany is suspending use of the oxford—astrazeneca covid vaccine for people under the age of 60 — because of a very small number of cases of blood clots in people who�*ve had the jab. both the eu and uk medicine regulators say the vaccine is safe, and the benefits outweigh the risks. it comes as europe faces a third wave of coronavirus. france�*s president macron is to give a speech later, as pressure grows on him to bring in tougher measures

to halt the spread. nick beake reports. germany, like the rest of europe, is desperate to boost production of covid vaccines so the opening of this brand—new biontech factory is welcome news. there is another blow for the astrazeneca shot. after resuming its use a fortnight ago, germany says it will stop giving it to the under 60s because of the risk of rare blood clots, even though astrazeneca and regulators say it is safe. translation: the vaccination is the most important tool - against the coronavirus. having several vaccines available is good and it is a great scientific achievement. we do not face the question astrazeneca or nothing, we have several vaccines available. daily vaccination rates in france are picking up, but not quickly enough to curb the third wave. intensive care doctors in paris

are working flat out and some are calling for tougher covid restrictions. translation: we must prevent the virus spreading. _ we cannot do that with half measures. these 50 shades of measures. they are not working. in two weeks we still will not see any change so we must go back into lockdown and sadly this lockdown will have to last for several weeks. that is something president macron resisted at the start of the year and he insists he took the right decision. but tonight he will address the french people about how they will cope with the darkening picture. elsewhere in europe the outlook is equally bleak, poland has reported the highest daily deaths this year so far, the british strain of the virus is responsible for more than 80% of cases, there are no intensive care beds free within a 150 kilometre radius of the capital warsaw. hungary has been vaccinating

faster than many other eu countries by using the chinese and russian vaccines, but it is suffering one of the worst infection rates in the world. the virus is spreading across the continent. vaccination suspicion and shortages remain. mainland europe feels far away from the easing of restrictions the likes of the uk is now starting to enjoy. nick beake, bbc news, brussels. and the european medicines agency has said it is meeting today as part of its ongoing review of "very rare cases of unusual blood clots" in people who have also had the astrazeneca vaccine. it said: "at present the review has not identified any specific risk factors, such as age, gender or a previous medical history of clotting disorders" and added "these are very rare events". a new study suggests the pfizer biontech covid—19 jab is "100% effective and well tolerated" among children aged 12 to 15.

pfizer said it now plans to seek approval for use of the vaccine in this age group from regulators around the world. our health correspondent jim reed told us more. pfizer have been trialling their vaccine on children and this is the first study results we have seen back from children. as you�*d imagine, very positive results, so 100% effective at stopping covid in the 12 to 15 age group. they studied just over 2000 children. pfizer say they hope vaccinations can begin in the united states of school age children just before the next school year, so in september. interesting because astrazeneca have been running a similar study in the uk to see if that is the case. some very interesting ethical issues, children are not particularly affected by covid so the reason to vaccinate them would not be to protect children from the disease. it is transmission? that is right, it is to stop it in the general community. so we need to come to a decision

as a society whether it is something we want or need to do. the headlines on bbc news... a major report says social class and family structure play a bigger part than race in determining people�*s lives in the uk. as germany limits its use of the astrazeneca vaccine to the over 60s, europe braces itself for a third covid wave. don�*tjoin large groups and take your litter home — the message to people out enjoying the sun — as one council decides to close some of its parks. more on that story. nottingham has closed two of its parks after the easing of lockdown restrictions in england — and the warm weather — led to large crowds gathering. the move came after health secretary matt hancock urged people to follow the rule of six and meet up safely. our correspondent navtej johal gave me this update from nottingham. it is quite serene, even peaceful at the moment. we have seen around a dozen police officers so the police

presence has been beefed up. you can understand why, the last two evenings have seen some scenes across nottingham�*s parks the authorities did not wish to see. large groups of people drinking in one of the parks and monday night, scenes of people gathering together, flouting the social distancing guidelines, climbing trees and even brawling as well. we have now had a statement from the city council from nottingham saying they will be closing the arboretum, along with another local park. in that statement the council leader said, we regret having to take this action because everyone has been looking forward to the chance to visit our parks. sadly the actions of a thoughtless minority has spoilt that. we will keep the situation under review and hope to open the parks as soon as possible. but this park does remain open for now, but saw similar scenes last

night and there was just behind me, a big clean—up operation early this morning as most of the ground was covered in litter. today is the last day that four million people who�*ve been shielding in england and wales will have to stay at home. but they are still being advised to minimise social contacts, to work from home where possible, and to stay at a distance from other people. england�*s deputy chief medical officerjenny harries has provided an update for those who are currently shielding. here�*s what she said. so the good news for those people who have been shielding is the rates of transmission of the disease in our communities has dropped very low, well below the rates, we�*re almost down to where we were last autumn. and so the likelihood of an individual actually coming into contact with the virus has reduced considerably. so now is the right time to be lifting our shielding advice. for the time being, it�*s an end to shielding but ijust want to clarify that. obviously, we are always keeping

an eye out to see what�*s happening to the virus, looking out for new variants, we�*re watching how the vaccine programme is going. and it�*s really important for those people who have been shielding that they know we are still able to contact them in the future should we need to give them any particular specialist advice. but for the time being, it�*s paused, people can resume normal life and that is our advice, but we would still urge two things... one is, make sure they have both their vaccinations and the second one is obviously, we give special guidance and they should continue to take extra special care so observe all the distancing, use face coverings, go out at times when it�*s less busy. that sort of thing. that is the deputy chief medical officer of england. in the us, the trial of the police officer accused of murdering george floyd is entering its third day. our correspondent gary o�*donoghue is live in minneapolis for us.

we have heard some powerful testimony from a teenage passer—by yesterday, what do we expect today? we are going to continue to hear some of that testimony from people who were at the scene. in particular, a woman who began giving her evidence yesterday, genevieve hanson. she is a firefighter, an off—duty firefighter at the time, came upon the scene and tried to intervene to give first aid to george floyd when he was on the floor. got into some verbal conflict with the police officers on the scene when they wouldn�*t let her do that. she became very emotional at times on the stand, there was some conflict between her and the defence attorney, eric nelson, to the extent that after proceedings ended, the judge had to keep her behind and tell her not to argue with the court, not to argue with counsel. that was incredibly tense and it followed a day where we had seen some incredibly young people having

to talk about their experiences of seeing a man die, seen a man die on the floor in front of them, powerless to do anything. one of them was nine years old on the witness stand. the nine—year—old on the witness stand talking about how sad she felt and how mad she had felt when she knew that george floyd was in trouble on the floor. another talking about how she stayed up at night in tears, she was, talking about how she wished she had been able and apologising to george floyd, because she wasn�*t able to do more to save his life. it has been incredibly powerful. in brutal terms, it has been a good start to this trial for the prosecution. terms, it has been a good start to this trialfor the prosecution. it has been incredibly powerful testimony. the defence case has started to emerge, trying to portray some of those bystanders as angry, threatening to the police officers involved, in some cases having

inconsistencies with what they had said to investigators at the beginning compared to what they were saying to the court now. the other part of the defence case, which we haven�*t heard too much about now, and we will when they get to put their case, is the question of pre—existing conditions, do george floyd�*s heart condition, the presence of drugs in his system, was that the main cause of his death on that the main cause of his death on that day or was the substantial because what derek chauvin did to him by kneeling on his neck for more than nine minutes? £1. him by kneeling on his neck for more than nine minutes?— than nine minutes? 0, gary o'donoghue _ than nine minutes? 0, gary o'donoghue reporting - than nine minutes? 0, gary o'donoghue reporting live l than nine minutes? 0, gary - o'donoghue reporting live from o�*donoghue reporting live from minneapolis. at half past three we�*ll be going live to the court proceedings. the archbishop of canterbury has addressed for the first time the remark made by the duchess of sussex that she got married three days before the royal wedding. during the interview with oprah winfrey, broadcast earlier this month, meghan said she and harry had a secret marriage ceremony with justin welby in their �*backyard.�* our royal correspondent nicholas witchell told me more.

this is an interview he is giving to an italian newspaper and he was asked about this claim by the duchess of sussex and he wouldn�*t go into detail with the interactions he had with harry and meghan. but he simply said the legal wedding was the one that took place on the saturday. so what this amounts to i think is a misunderstanding on the part of the duchess of sussex. it was established just after she made this claim that what occurred a couple of days beforehand was an exchange of vows between her and harry, but that was not actually a marriage. we have got to remember a marriage, if you like, a legal contract and you have got to have witnesses to it, the signing of the register. that is why it becomes a legally binding contract. that is what happened, they became husband and wife in the ceremony that so many around

the world witnessed in st george�*s cattle in 2018. her claim that they married in private, in secret a couple of days beforehand is wrong and it is a misunderstanding on her part. it wasn�*t the only misunderstanding in the oprah interview. so too was her suggestion that her son archie was unfairly denied the rank and style of prince for some improper reason. that is not the case because he is not entitled to that because of his position within the royal family and within the line of succession. you have got to remember the whole direction of travel within the royal family and a direction of travel will accelerate once the prince of wales becomes king is to have a smaller royal family, fewer people with the rank of prince or princess. it would generally be thought of as an obstacle, a significant encumbrance to somebody leading the kind of normal life that harry and meghan have opted for themselves and they say they want for their son.

so a misunderstanding and certainly very much a misunderstanding in terms of the suggestion they were married in secret a couple of days beforehand. the marriage was in st george�*s chapel. so the archbishop of canterbury has said this to make it very clear he did not do anything illegal, he followed proper procedures. but i suppose the effect of his comments is to throw attention once again on that interview and quite inaccurate some of the comments made by the duchess of sussex where? i think that is the issue, yes. had she properly understood what was happening? did she have a proper understanding of the life that she was marrying into? if she could get this wrong, may she have misunderstood other aspects of it? i am sure the archbishop didn�*t want to talk about it, he was asked about it in the context of an interview with an italian newspaper. but it had been established

at the time this claim emerged in the oprah interview, that it could not be correct, you cannotjust marry somebody in the presence of a priest, never mind who the priest is, albeit it is the archbishop of canterbury. that does not make it legal. and the archbishop, when asked by the newspaper, was at pains to point that out. the underlying issue that it draws attention to is the extent to which meghan may have misunderstood events and just been getting them wrong and telling an inaccurate version of actually what did occur. the metropolitan police commissioner, cressida dick, has told the bbc she feels people in responsible positions should "stop and think" before passing judgement on actions taken by the force. yesterday, a report from the inspectorate of constabulary found officers acted "appropriately" at the vigil for sarah everard in south london earlier this month. speaking on radio 4�*s today programme, the commissioner said senior public figures expressed

opinions before knowing the facts about the vigil. people in public life, people in responsible positions should stop and think before theyjudge, whoever they may be, and as sir tom says, broadly speaking, a police officer is entitled to public support... this is the author of the report? absolutely. the chief inspector of constabulary. so people should stop and think because if they comment without knowing the facts, they may, and i suggest on this occasion some people did, affect public confidence in the police service inappropriately and, secondly, affect the officer�*s confidence about volunteering for the same duty in the next instance if they are going to be criticised even when they�*ve done a really good job. the metropolitan police commisioner was also asked about the duchess of cambridge�*s decision to attend the vigil for sarah everard. cressida dick said the duchess was carrying out her

royal duties. a, i think it�*s worth looking at, as an example ofjust how strongly people felt, what she said about her attendance there. b, she�*s in the course of her duties, she�*s working, so of course... really, it was legal for her because you think she was there for work? let me go back, at that point, people had a whole series of potentially reasonable excuses for being away from home. we didn�*t all have them for everything. i�*ve picked out one that may well apply to her. but let�*s be clear, there was a very, very calm vigil that she attended where lots and lots of people came... but you have said that it was illegal. no, the vigil itself started off in a socially distanced manner. i don�*t understand because you have said yourself you would have attended the vigil had it been legal. so it was illegal, from your perspective, including when the duchess attended?

i think you need to go back to the beginning. what we knew and what matt parr said was that it was quite clear that whatever the organisers wanted to arrange, the numbers were going to be overwhelming, there was not an ability in the long run to be able to keep this socially distanced or in any sense covid safe or strictly legal. the pandemic has caused big losses in the uk insurance market. now on bbc news — we canjoin bbc world and my colleague matthew amroliwala for coverage of the start of day three of the trial for derek chauvin — charged with the murder of george floyd.

this is bbc news with special coverage of the george floyd murder trial. this is the scene live in the minneapolis court room where the case against the former policeman derek chauvin is about to resume for a third day. on tuesday there was powerful testimony, as an off—duty firefighter, who will resume her testimony today, said officers prevented her from administering medical help. i tried different tactics of calm and reasoning... itried i tried different tactics of calm and reasoning... i tried to be assertive. i played with them and was desperate. —— i pled. hello and welcome to bbc world news. and special coverage of the george floyd murder trial.

proceedings are about to resume on day three of the trial of derek chauvin, the former police officer, charged with mr floyd�*s murder. yesterday, the court heard compelling testimony from eye—witnesses, including the teenager who filmed the video of derek chauvin with his knee on george floyd�*s neck. she told the court she stays up at night apologising for not doing more to help save him. with me isjeffrey cramer, a former federal prosecutor. he�*s in chicago and he�*ll be with me for the next few hours to help guide us through what we�*re seeing. day two ended with evidence from an off—duty fire fighter. she�*ll be the first witness today. the prosecution is then likely to start calling expert witnesses. proceedings are going to get under way anytime soon with the resumption of the giving evidence. we have seen eight witnesses so far. yesterday

that centred around the eye witnesses on the pavement describing at first hand what they saw. we can now get the latest. the prosecution wants jurors to see this case through the eyes of people at the scene. among them, a teenager who had been on her way to the shops. it was her mobile phone footage that was seen around the world. a minor at the time, her face was not shown in court. her testimony, the first time race has been mentioned in this trial. when i look at george floyd i look at my dad, i look at my brothers, i look at my cousins, my uncles. because they are all black. i have a black father, i have a black brother, i have black friends. and i look at that and i look at how that could have been one of them.

there�*s been nights i�*ve stayed up apologising... ..and apologising to george floyd for not doing more. in total there were four witnesses who were under age at the time, too young to be shown on camera, yet witnesses in a murder trial. the youngest was just nine years old. how did it affect you? i was sad and kind of mad. and tell us, why were you sad and mad? cos it feels like he was stopping him breathing and was kind - of like hurting him. last to take the stand, a minneapolis firefighter, seen here trying to get officers to allow her to perform first aid. trained in cpr, she said she felt totally distressed at not being allowed to help. in my memory i tried different tactics of calm and reasoning. i tried to be assertive.

i pled and was desperate. the testimony in court has been visceral and raw, witnesses describing how they felt powerless to help mr floyd as he lay on the ground here. the job for the defence will be to get the jury to put that emotion aside — a task that may be challenging. lebo diseko, bbc news, minneapolis. they have just started proceedings. before we go to the courtroom, just a warning that there may be graphic video or details in the evidence which people find distressing. we�*re not in control of the picture feed so it�*s worth bearing that in mind, as you�*re watching. we can now cross to the court because the prosecution has just started questioning the firefighter again. started questioning the firefighter aaain. :, : if started questioning the firefighter again-- if you _ started questioning the firefighter again.- if you knew - started questioning the firefighter again.- if you knew that i started questioning the firefighter again.- if you knew that it | again. correct. if you knew that it wasn't a bodily — again. correct. if you knew that it wasn't a bodily fluid _ again. correct. if you knew that it wasn't a bodily fluid from - again. correct. if you knew that it wasn't a bodily fluid from mr - again. correct. if you knew that it l wasn't a bodily fluid from mr floyd, would _

wasn't a bodily fluid from mr floyd, would it_ wasn't a bodily fluid from mr floyd, would it have changed your assessment of his medical needs at that point— assessment of his medical needs at that point in time? no, assessment of his medical needs at that point in time?— assessment of his medical needs at that point in time?- your i that point in time? no, sir. your assessment— that point in time? no, sir. your assessment of— that point in time? no, sir. your assessment of his _ that point in time? no, sir. your assessment of his medical- that point in time? no, sir. your i assessment of his medical condition at that— assessment of his medical condition at that time, you believe he needed immediate — at that time, you believe he needed immediate medical attention? yes, sir. you immediate medical attention? yes, sir- you were _ immediate medical attention? yes, sir. you were asked _ immediate medical attention? yes, sir. you were asked about - immediate medical attention? yes, sir. you were asked about whetherl sir. you were asked about whether ou could sir. you were asked about whether you could hear _ sir. you were asked about whether you could hear the _ sir. you were asked about whether you could hear the officers - sir. you were asked about whetherj you could hear the officers talking, did they _ you could hear the officers talking, did they ever, let me be more specific. — did they ever, let me be more specific, where did the other three officers _ specific, where did the other three officers talk to you at all? not that i remember. _ officers talk to you at all? not that i remember. did - officers talk to you at all? not that i remember. did any i officers talk to you at all? not that i remember. did any of. officers talk to you at all? not i that i remember. did any of them tell ou that i remember. did any of them tell you that _ that i remember. did any of them tell you that they _ that i remember. did any of them tell you that they have _ that i remember. did any of them tell you that they have got - that i remember. did any of them tell you that they have got an i tell you that they have got an ambulance coming? not tell you that they have got an ambulance coming?— tell you that they have got an ambulance coming? not that i remember- — ambulance coming? not that i remember. did _ ambulance coming? not that i remember. did any _ ambulance coming? not that i remember. did any of - ambulance coming? not that i remember. did any of them i ambulance coming? not that i i remember. did any of them and tell ou that remember. did any of them and tell you that they _ remember. did any of them and tell you that they have _ remember. did any of them and tell you that they have the _ remember. did any of them and tell you that they have the fire - you that they have the fire department coming? you asked about what you _ department coming? you asked about what you thought would be a typical response _ what you thought would be a typical response time for the fire department because that is who you work for. _ department because that is who you work for, correct?—

department because that is who you work for, correct?- you i department because that is who you | work for, correct?- you were work for, correct? correct. you were bein: work for, correct? correct. you were being asked — work for, correct? correct. you were being asked about _ work for, correct? correct. you were being asked about something - work for, correct? correct. you were being asked about something you i being asked about something you don't _ being asked about something you don't really know about in terms of the fire _ don't really know about in terms of the fire department response in this case _ the fire department response in this case you _ the fire department response in this case. you don't know anything about who called _ case. you don't know anything about who called the ambulance and the fire department for this particular case? _ fire department for this particular case? :, : the fire department for this particular case?- the answers i fire department for this particular case?- the answers you i fire department for this particular i case?- the answers you were case? correct. the answers you were liven of a case? correct. the answers you were given of a typical — case? correct. the answers you were given of a typical case? _ case? correct. the answers you were given of a typical case? correct. i those are all the questions i have. thank— those are all the questions i have. thank you — those are all the questions i have. thank you. you may step down. the shortest of sessions with genevieve hansen, the firefighter

who is also a trained medical emergency technician. the prosecution just pushing back a little in terms of where eric nelson on the left, the defence attorney on the left, finished proceedings, but as eric nelson just heads to the microphone we will pause now and thatis microphone we will pause now and that is a good time to bring in geoffrey kramer, former federal prosecutor who will be with us for the next little while. we are about to hear the next witness. a quick assessment from you. we go into day three, what have you made of the prosecution and defence so far? it is going according to course, the prosecution is putting in a very linear and logical presentation and the defence is doing what they are supposed to be doing which is throwing a little dirt at it to muddy the waters, because they don�*t have to prove anything. it is up to

the prosecution to orchestrate this and it is early but i don�*t think they have made any missteps yet. you said to our producer that in a sense the defence can almost sit there and play chess and they don�*t have a cohesive theory and they don�*t have to have one. are you sure about that? ~ , , to have one. are you sure about that? ~ , �* to have one. are you sure about that? absolutely. i've never seen a defence lawyer— that? absolutely. i've never seen a defence lawyer play _ that? absolutely. i've never seen a defence lawyer play chess - that? absolutely. i've never seen a defence lawyer play chess in - that? absolutely. i've never seen a defence lawyer play chess in one i that? absolutely. i've never seen aj defence lawyer play chess in one of my trials but i guess they could, and in the us system at the prosecution has got to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there are alternative theories if someone else could have done it, talking generally, the defence does not have to prove it, they don�*t have to put on a single witness, the defendant does not have to testify. the defence does not have to do a thing. the defence does not have to do a thin. , . the defence does not have to do a thin._ , , the defence does not have to do a thing. just pause there because the next witness _ thing. just pause there because the next witness has _ thing. just pause there because the next witness has taken _ thing. just pause there because the next witness has taken the - thing. just pause there because the next witness has taken the seat. i thing. just pause there because the| next witness has taken the seat. we are going to go back to the court room. :. ~'

are going to go back to the court room. :, ~ ,:, y are going to go back to the court room. :, ~ y:, , : :, :, room. thank you very much. how old are ou? room. thank you very much. how old are you? 19- — room. thank you very much. how old are you? 19. where _ room. thank you very much. how old are you? 19. where do _ room. thank you very much. how old are you? 19. where do you _ room. thank you very much. how old are you? 19. where do you live? i room. thank you very much. how old are you? 19. where do you live? you | are you? t9). where do you live? you don't are you? where do you live? you don't have to _ are you? 19. where do you live? you don't have to give your address. bloomington, minnesota. taking you back to the 25th — bloomington, minnesota. taking you back to the 25th of _ bloomington, minnesota. taking you back to the 25th of may, _ bloomington, minnesota. taking you back to the 25th of may, 2020, - bloomington, minnesota. taking you back to the 25th of may, 2020, last | back to the 25th of may, 2020, last year. _ back to the 25th of may, 2020, last year. where — back to the 25th of may, 2020, last year, where were you living at that time? _ year, where were you living at that time? |_ year, where were you living at that time? :. . year, where were you living at that time? :,, :, ,:, time? i was living above the restaurant, _ time? i was living above the restaurant, in _ time? i was living above the restaurant, in an _ time? i was living above the restaurant, in an apartment| time? i was living above the i restaurant, in an apartment on time? i was living above the - restaurant, in an apartment on 38th st. :, :, :, ,:, restaurant, in an apartment on 38th st. :, :, :, , st. how long had you been living there? about _ st. how long had you been living there? about four _ st. how long had you been living there? about four months. i i st. how long had you been living| there? about four months. i lived there? about four months. i lived there with — there? about four months. i lived there with my _ there? about four months. i lived there with my mother _ there? about four months. i lived there with my mother and - there? about four months. i lived there with my mother and sister. | there? about four months. i lived i there with my mother and sister. you were familiar — there with my mother and sister. you were familiar with the area? yes. i there with my mother and sister. you were familiar with the area? yes. 0n| were familiar with the area? yes. on that date, were familiar with the area? yes. on that date. were _ were familiar with the area? ues on that date, were you in school at the time? _ that date, were you in school at the time? :, that date, were you in school at the time? no. did you go on to do schooling _ time? ii�*iffi did you go on to do schooling after that? time? no. did you go on to do schooling after that? no, i i time? no. did you go on to do i schooling after that? no, i usually do schooling _ schooling after that? no, i usually do schooling in _ schooling after that? no, i usually do schooling in the _ schooling after that? no, i usually do schooling in the morning. i schooling after that? no, i usually do schooling in the morning. what ou do schooling in the morning. what you mean? _

do schooling in the morning. what you mean? i— do schooling in the morning. what you mean? i go — do schooling in the morning. what you mean? i go to _ do schooling in the morning. what you mean? i go to downtown i you mean? i go to downtown minneapolis— you mean? i go to downtown minneapolis and _ you mean? i go to downtown minneapolis and do - you mean? i go to downtown minneapolis and do my i you mean? i go to downtownl minneapolis and do my school you mean? i go to downtown - minneapolis and do my school online and then take the bus home. did you have a job? — and then take the bus home. did you have ajob? yes. _ and then take the bus home. did you have ajob? yes, i _ and then take the bus home. did you have ajob? yes, i did. _ and then take the bus home. did you have ajob? yes, i did. that- and then take the bus home. did you have a job? yes, i did. that was i and then take the bus home. did you have a job? yes, i did. that was at i have a “ob? yes, i did. that was at cu have a job? yes, i did. that was at cup foods. — have a job? yes, i did. that was at cup foods. a _ have a job? yes, i did. that was at cup foods, a full-time _ have a job? yes, i did. that was at cup foods, a full-time job. - have a job? yes, i did. that was at cup foods, a full-time job. i- have a job? yes, i did. that was at i cup foods, a full-time job. i worked cup foods, a full—timejob. i worked every day apart from wednesday and sundays. every day apart from wednesday and sunda s. ~ :. ~ every day apart from wednesday and sunda s. ~ :, ~ :, , ,:, sundays. what kind of things did you do at cup foods? _ sundays. what kind of things did you do at cup foods? a _ sundays. what kind of things did you do at cup foods? a cashier. - sundays. what kind of things did you do at cup foods? a cashier. workingj do at cup foods? a cashier. working tobacco if someone _ do at cup foods? a cashier. working tobacco if someone had _ do at cup foods? a cashier. working tobacco if someone had come - do at cup foods? a cashier. working tobacco if someone had come in i do at cup foods? a cashier. working tobacco if someone had come in or i | tobacco if someone had come in or i could help if people wanted to buy things from the deli counter or various snacks. fin things from the deli counter or various snacks.— things from the deli counter or various snacks. :, ~:_ various snacks. on the 25th of may, how lona various snacks. on the 25th of may, how long had _ various snacks. on the 25th of may, how long had you — various snacks. on the 25th of may, how long had you been _ various snacks. on the 25th of may, how long had you been working i various snacks. on the 25th of may, how long had you been working at i various snacks. on the 25th of may, i how long had you been working at cup foods _ how long had you been working at cup foods by _ how long had you been working at cup foods by that date?— foods by that date? about two months. foods by that date? about two months- can — foods by that date? about two months. can you _ foods by that date? about two months. can you describe i foods by that date? about two months. can you describe fori foods by that date? about two i months. can you describe for the “urors months. can you describe for the jurors what _ months. can you describe for the jurors what is _ months. can you describe for the jurors what is cup _ months. can you describe for the

jurors what is cup foods? - months. can you describe for the jurors what is cup foods? there l months. can you describe for the l jurors what is cup foods? there is months. can you describe for the i jurors what is cup foods? there is a dail area jurors what is cup foods? there is a daily area where _ jurors what is cup foods? there is a daily area where you _ jurors what is cup foods? there is a daily area where you can _ jurors what is cup foods? there is a daily area where you can order- jurors what is cup foods? there is a daily area where you can order food| daily area where you can order food and you can get wing combos, italian beef, sandwiches, groceries, toiletries. tobacco. and also phone products. toiletries. tobacco. and also phone roducts. ~ :. toiletries. tobacco. and also phone roducts. ~ :, :, toiletries. tobacco. and also phone roducts. :, :, _ :, products. what you mean by that? metro ps, products. what you mean by that? metro ps, i— products. what you mean by that? metro ps, | think, _ products. what you mean by that? metro ps, i think, you _ products. what you mean by that? metro ps, i think, you can - products. what you mean by that? metro ps, i think, you can buy i products. what you mean by that? metro ps, i think, you can buy a i metro ps, i think, you can buy a phone and set up a plan. [30 metro ps, i think, you can buy a phone and set up a plan. do they also have people _ phone and set up a plan. do they also have people there _ phone and set up a plan. do they also have people there that i phone and set up a plan. do they| also have people there that could fix and _ also have people there that could fix and repair phones? yes. so they do a lot there? _ fix and repair phones? yes. so they do a lot there? yes. _ fix and repair phones? yes. so they do a lot there? yes. fairly - fix and repair phones? yes. so they do a lot there? yes. fairly busy - do a lot there? yes. fairly busy store in may — do a lot there? yes. fairly busy store in may of— do a lot there? is; fairly busy store in may of 2020? do a lot there? yes. fairly busy store in may of 2020? yes. - do a lot there? yes. fairly busy store in may of 2020? yes. a l do a lot there? yes. fairly busyl store in may of 2020? yes. a lot do a lot there? yes. fairly busy - store in may of 2020? yes. a lot of customers? — store in may of 2020? yes. a lot of customers? yes. _ store in may of 2020? yes. a lot of customers? yes. the _ store in may of 2020? yes. a lot of customers? yes. the part- store in may of 2020? yes. a lot of customers? yes. the part that - store in may of 2020? yes. a lot of customers? yes. the part that soldi customers? yes. the part that sold tobacco, customers? yes. the part that sold tobacco. that _ customers? yes. the part that sold tobacco, that was _ customers? is; the part that sold tobacco, that was separated customers? .j:3 the part that sold tobacco, that was separated from the rest of— tobacco, that was separated from the rest of the _ tobacco, that was separated from the

rest of the store?— rest of the store? when you first walk in that _ rest of the store? when you first walk in that there _ rest of the store? when you first walk in that there is _ rest of the store? when you first walk in that there is a _ rest of the store? when you first walk in that there is a door - rest of the store? when you first walk in that there is a door to . rest of the store? when you first i walk in that there is a door to your left and if you open that door, that is where you go in and you can get food or snacks or toiletries as i explained, and if you go to the right, straight in front of you, thatis right, straight in front of you, that is where the tobacco is. the tobacco part _ that is where the tobacco is. the tobacco part is — that is where the tobacco is. the tobacco part is sectioned off? that is where the tobacco is. the i tobacco part is sectioned off? yes, basicall . tobacco part is sectioned off? yes, basically- you _ tobacco part is sectioned off? yes, basically. you would _ tobacco part is sectioned off? yes, basically. you would work- tobacco part is sectioned off? yes, basically. you would work in - tobacco part is sectioned off? yes, basically. you would work in the i basically. you would work in the tobacco area _ basically. you would work in the tobacco area and _ basically. you would work in the tobacco area and the _ basically. you would work in the tobacco area and the regular- basically. you would work in the i tobacco area and the regular area? yes _ tobacco area and the regular area? yes. h, tobacco area and the regular area? yes. ,., ., n_ tobacco area and the regular area? yes. ., :: :: tobacco area and the regular area? yes. ., $1 $1 i” yes. going to may 25, 2020, were you workin: on yes. going to may 25, 2020, were you working on that — yes. going to may 25, 2020, were you working on that day? _ yes. going to may 25, 2020, were you working on that day? yes. _ yes. going to may 25, 2020, were you working on that day? yes. that - yes. going to may 25, 2020, were you working on that day? yes. that is - working on that day? yes. that is the date on _ working on that day? yes. that is the date on which _ working on that day? i'j:3 that is the date on which the working on that day? ij:3 that is the date on which the incident occurred~ _ the date on which the incident occurred. was your shift 3—8 that day? _ occurred. was your shift 3-8 that da ? . ., , occurred. was your shift 3-8 that da ? . , , occurred. was your shift 3-8 that | day?_ when day? three until close, yes. when ou are day? three until close, yes. when you are working. _ day? three until close, yes. when you are working, let's _ day? three until close, yes. when you are working, let's look - day? three until close, yes. when you are working, let's look at - day? three until close, yes. when you are working, let's look at that| you are working, let's look at that datei _

you are working, let's look at that date, how — you are working, let's look at that date, how many co—workers did you have _ date, how many co—workers did you have working with you that day? about _ have working with you that day? about 4-5 — have working with you that day? about 4—5 with at least one manager present. about 4-5 with at least one manager resent. j �* , ., ., present. and... let's go to approximately _ present. and... let's go to approximately 7:45pm. - present. and... let's go to | approximately 7:45pm. you present. and... let's go to - approximately 7:45pm. you were working. — approximately 7:45pm. you were working, did you have a customer who came _ working, did you have a customer who came into _ working, did you have a customer who came into the — working, did you have a customer who came into the store that you know now as _ came into the store that you know now as mr— came into the store that you know now as mr floyd?— came into the store that you know now as mr floyd? yes. did you know him before — now as mr floyd? yes. did you know him before he _ now as mr floyd? ij:3 did you know him before he came into the now as mr floyd? iij:3 did you know him before he came into the store? now as mr floyd? yes. did you know| him before he came into the store? i did him before he came into the store? did not. him before he came into the store? i did not- had — him before he came into the store? i did not- had you _ him before he came into the store? i did not. had you ever— him before he came into the store? i did not. had you ever seen _ him before he came into the store? i did not. had you ever seen him - did not. had you ever seen him before? no- — did not. had you ever seen him before? no. what _ did not. had you ever seen him before? no. what was - did not. had you ever seen him before? no. what was it - did not. had you ever seen him before? no. what was it about | did not. had you ever seen him - before? no. what was it about him that before? what was it about him that gave before ?- what was it about him that gave you _ before? iijri: what was it about him that gave you notice? before? no. what was it about him that gave you notice? probably - before? no. what was it about him i that gave you notice? probablyjust that gave you notice? probably 'ust his size. that gave you notice? probably 'ust his he — that gave you notice? probably 'ust his size. he was i that gave you notice? probably 'ust his size. he was big i that gave you notice? probably 'ust his size. he was big so i that gave you notice? probably 'ust his size. he was big so i i that gave you notice? probablyjust his size. he was big so i noticed. i his size. he was big so i noticed. apart from that ijust his size. he was big so i noticed. apart from that i just saw his size. he was big so i noticed. apart from that ijust saw him as another customer. you apart from that i just saw him as another customer.— apart from that i just saw him as another customer. you said it was his size, another customer. you said it was his size. he _ another customer. you said it was his size, he was _ another customer. you said it was his size, he was a _ another customer. you said it was his size, he was a tall _ another customer. you said it was his size, he was a tall guy? i another customer. you said it was his size, he was a tall guy? yes. |

his size, he was a tall guy? yes. did ou his size, he was a tall guy? yes. did you interact _ his size, he was a tall guy? yes. did you interact with _ his size, he was a tall guy? yes. did you interact with him? i i his size, he was a tall guy? yes. did you interact with him? i had | his size, he was a tall guy? yes. i did you interact with him? i had one conversation — did you interact with him? i had one conversation with _ did you interact with him? i had one conversation with him. _ did you interact with him? i had one conversation with him. what - did you interact with him? i had one conversation with him. what was i did you interact with him? i had one| conversation with him. what was the conversation — conversation with him. what was the conversation generally? _ conversation with him. what was the conversation generally? i _ conversation with him. what was the conversation generally? i asked i conversation with him. what was the conversation generally? i asked him| conversation generally? i asked him if he played — conversation generally? i asked him if he played football, _ conversation generally? i asked him if he played football, actually, i if he played football, actually, baseball, and he said he played baseball. —— football. baseball, and he said he played baseball. -- football.— baseball, and he said he played baseball. -- football. and... when ou were baseball. -- football. and... when you were communicating _ baseball. -- football. and... when you were communicating with i baseball. -- football. and... when you were communicating with him, baseball. -- football. and... when i you were communicating with him, can you were communicating with him, can you describe _ you were communicating with him, can you describe it to the jurors his demeanour? you describe it to the 'urors his demeanourah you describe it to the 'urors his demeanour? ~ ., a demeanour? when i asked him if he -la ed demeanour? when i asked him if he played baseball. _ demeanour? when i asked him if he played baseball, he _ demeanour? when i asked him if he played baseball, he went _ demeanour? when i asked him if he played baseball, he went on - demeanour? when i asked him if he played baseball, he went on to i played baseball, he went on to respond to that but it took him a little long to get to what he was trying to say, so it would appear that he was high. you trying to say, so it would appear that he was high.— trying to say, so it would appear that he was high. trying to say, so it would appear that he was hiuh. ., ., .,, that he was high. you thought he was under the influence _ that he was high. you thought he was under the influence of _ that he was high. you thought he was under the influence of something? i under the influence of something? yes. ~ , ., ., ,

under the influence of something? yes. . ., , ., under the influence of something? yes. , under the influence of something? yes. were you able to carry on some kind of conversation _ yes. were you able to carry on some kind of conversation with _ yes. were you able to carry on some kind of conversation with him? i yes. were you able to carry on some kind of conversation with him? yes. | kind of conversation with him? yes. did ou kind of conversation with him? yes. did you sell — kind of conversation with him? yes. did you sell him _ kind of conversation with him? iij:3 did you sell him something in the end? _ did you sell him something in the end? , did you sell him something in the end?- what _ did you sell him something in the end? yes. what was that? did you sell him something in the end?- what was that? end? yes. what was that? cigarettes. that was later — end? yes. what was that? cigarettes. that was later on. _ end? yes. what was that? cigarettes. that was later on. the _ end? yes. what was that? cigarettes. that was later on. the conversation i that was later on. the conversation that we had, he did not purchase anything. that we had, he did not purchase an hina. ., , . anything. later when he purchased thins ou anything. later when he purchased things you were — anything. later when he purchased things you were able _ anything. later when he purchased things you were able to _ anything. later when he purchased| things you were able to understand what he _ things you were able to understand what he was buying? yes. when he was in the store. — what he was buying? iij:3 when he was in the store, well, i was going to ask you — in the store, well, i was going to ask you how— in the store, well, i was going to ask you how long he was in the store. — ask you how long he was in the store. was— ask you how long he was in the store, was it a quicktime or he was in there _ store, was it a quicktime or he was in there for— store, was it a quicktime or he was in there for a — store, was it a quicktime or he was in there for a little bit? a store, was it a quicktime or he was in there for a little bit?— in there for a little bit? a little bit. he in there for a little bit? a little bit- he came _ in there for a little bit? a little bit. he came in _ in there for a little bit? a little bit. he came in to _ in there for a little bit? a little bit. he came in to make i in there for a little bit? a little bit. he came in to make some | in there for a little bit? a little - bit. he came in to make some repairs on his phone so he might have had to wait in line and then... at on his phone so he might have had to wait in line and then. . .— wait in line and then... at cup foods you _ wait in line and then... at cup foods you are _ wait in line and then... at cup

foods you are aware - wait in line and then... at cup foods you are aware there i wait in line and then... at cupj foods you are aware there are security— foods you are aware there are security cameras inside? correct. one of those _ security cameras inside? correct. one of those security _ security cameras inside? correct. one of those security cameras i security cameras inside? correct. i one of those security cameras faces the store _ one of those security cameras faces the store to — one of those security cameras faces the store to the front, correct? yes _ the store to the front, correct? yes. ., . ., , the store to the front, correct? yes. ., , , , yes. that will capture the employees and the caches. _ yes. that will capture the employees and the caches. yes. _ yes. that will capture the employees and the caches. yes. prior— yes. that will capture the employees and the caches. yes. prior to - yes. that will capture the employees and the caches. yes. prior to coming | and the caches. yes. prior to coming into court. — and the caches. yes. prior to coming into court. we _ and the caches. iij:3 prior to coming into court, we showed you a video of the time _ into court, we showed you a video of the time that mr floyd was in the store _ the time that mr floyd was in the store. , the time that mr floyd was in the store-- when _ the time that mr floyd was in the store. yes. when you saw that, did ou store. yes. when you saw that, did you recognise _ store. iij:3 when you saw that, did you recognise that as a fair and accurate — you recognise that as a fair and accurate representation of the time that he _ accurate representation of the time that he was in the store? yes. i'm auoin to that he was in the store? yes. i'm going to offer _ that he was in the store? iij:3 i'm going to offer exhibit 29. that he was in the store? yes. i'm going to offer exhibit 29. 29 i that he was in the store? yes. i'm going to offer exhibit 29. 29 is i going to offer exhibit 29. 29 is received- _ going to offer exhibit 29. 29 is received. we _ going to offer exhibit 29. 29 is received. we are _ going to offer exhibit 29. 29 is received. we are going - going to offer exhibit 29. 29 is received. we are going to i going to offer exhibit 29. 29 is received. we are going to play going to offer exhibit 29. 29 is l received. we are going to play it for ou received. we are going to play it for you now- _ received. we are going to play it for you now. there _ received. we are going to play it for you now. there is _ received. we are going to play it for you now. there is no - received. we are going to play it for you now. there is no audio i received. we are going to play it| for you now. there is no audio on this _ for you now. there is no audio on this it _ for you now. there is no audio on this it is — for you now. there is no audio on this it isiust_ for you now. there is no audio on this. it isjust video.— for you now. there is no audio on this. it isjust video. yes. we are this. it is 'ust video. yes. we are auoin to this. it isjust video. yes. we are going to sit _ this. it isjust video. yes. we are going to sit and _

this. it isjust video. yes. we are going to sit and watch _ this. it isjust video. iij:3 we are going to sit and watch and then i will ask— going to sit and watch and then i will ask some questions after the video— will ask some questions after the video shows, ok? i'm going to pause this for a moment _ i'm going to pause this for a moment. let's see if we can click forward _ moment. let's see if we can click forward just— moment. let's see if we can click forward just a few more frames, please — forward just a few more frames, please. let's keep going for a little — please. let's keep going for a little bit _ please. let's keep going for a little bit. stop it right there, please _ little bit. stop it right there, please. thank you. a couple of things. — please. thank you. a couple of things, and just for the record, the timestamp — things, and just for the record, the timestamp on the video is 734, 57, timestamp on the video is 734,57, but mr_ timestamp on the video is 734,57, but mr martin, you don't know if that timestamp is the actual correct time that— that timestamp is the actual correct time that this has been taken, do you? _

time that this has been taken, do you? |_ time that this has been taken, do ou? ., ., time that this has been taken, do you?- there _ time that this has been taken, do you?- there are - time that this has been taken, do you?- there are ways i time that this has been taken, do you?- there are ways we | time that this has been taken, do i you?- there are ways we can you? i do not. there are ways we can deal with that — you? i do not. there are ways we can deal with that later— you? i do not. there are ways we can deal with that later but _ you? i do not. there are ways we can deal with that later but i _ you? i do not. there are ways we can deal with that later but i think - you? i do not. there are ways we can deal with that later but i think you i deal with that later but i think you have answered my question. if you work— have answered my question. if you work in _ have answered my question. if you work in this— have answered my question. if you work in this photograph, described for the _ work in this photograph, described for the jurors what we are seeing in the layout— for the jurors what we are seeing in the layout of the store and one of the layout of the store and one of the things— the layout of the store and one of the things i want to let you know, in front— the things i want to let you know, in front of— the things i want to let you know, in front of you there should be a stylus _ in front of you there should be a stylus like — in front of you there should be a stylus like this and if you take it and draw— stylus like this and if you take it and draw on the screen, so if you would. _ and draw on the screen, so if you would. just— and draw on the screen, so if you would, just telling the jurors the layout— would, just telling the jurors the layout of— would, just telling the jurors the layout of the store, maybe mark the screen _ layout of the store, maybe mark the screen when you are talking about the different areas, ok? ok. when ou enter the different areas, ok? ok. when you enter it— the different areas, ok? ok. when you enter it here, _ the different areas, ok? ok. when you enter it here, the _ the different areas, ok? ok. when you enter it here, the next - the different areas, ok? ok. when you enter it here, the next door- you enter it here, the next door will be right here... this is where tobacco is, so that is how it is closed off, and if you take a left here, there is a door here, and...

these are the snacks and this is where the deli counter is located, tucked off here. right here is my manager's space, normally where they are, watching to see who comes in and out. back here you can't see it but that is usually where most of the people are who can help you with your phone. right here in the front is mainly where i sit all day when i work as a cashier. you is mainly where i sit all day when i work as a cashier.— is mainly where i sit all day when i work as a cashier. you can clear the screen in one _ work as a cashier. you can clear the screen in one fell— work as a cashier. you can clear the screen in one fell swoop, _ work as a cashier. you can clear the screen in one fell swoop, please. i screen in one fell swoop, please. thank— screen in one fell swoop, please. thank you — screen in one fell swoop, please. thank you. so, can you identify this individual? — thank you. so, can you identify this individual? . ., thank you. so, can you identify this individual? , ., thank you. so, can you identify this individual?_ who i thank you. so, can you identify this individual?_ who you | individual? george floyd. who you had had the _ individual? george floyd. who you had had the conversation - individual? george floyd. who you had had the conversation with? i had had the conversation with? correct — had had the conversation with? correct. . had had the conversation with? correct. , ., ., , correct. this individual, who is that? that _ correct. this individual, who is that? that is _ correct. this individual, who is that? that is me. _

correct. this individual, who is that? that is me. these i correct. this individual, who is that? that is me. these other| that? that is me. these other individuals, _ that? that is me. these other individuals, co-workers? i that? that is me. these otherj individuals, co-workers? yes. that? that is me. these other- individuals, co-workers? yes. this is the area. _ individuals, co-workers? yes. this is the area, when _ individuals, co-workers? yes. this is the area, when you _ individuals, co—workers? iij:3 this is the area, when you are cashing in, is the area, when you are cashing in. that— is the area, when you are cashing in. that you — is the area, when you are cashing in, that you work?— is the area, when you are cashing in, that you work? yes. apart from if it is tobacco _ in, that you work? yes. apart from if it is tobacco and _ in, that you work? iij:3 apart from if it is tobacco and that is over here? — if it is tobacco and that is over here? . if it is tobacco and that is over here?- 0k- _ if it is tobacco and that is over here?- ok. we _ if it is tobacco and that is over here?- ok. we can i if it is tobacco and that is over here?- ok. we can let i if it is tobacco and that is over here? yes. ok. we can let it run. we are going to pause here for another— we are going to pause here for another moment. there is an

individual— another moment. there is an individual sitting here. you don't have _ individual sitting here. you don't have to — individual sitting here. you don't have to give his name, but is he a co-worker? — have to give his name, but is he a co-worker?_ have to give his name, but is he a co-worker?- it _ have to give his name, but is he a co—worker? yes. it looks like just co-worker? yes. it looks like 'ust in this co-worker? yes. it looks like 'ust intnsframefi co-worker? yes. it looks like 'ust in this frame at i co-worker? yes. it looks like 'ust in this frame at least i co—worker? iij:3 it looks like just in this frame at least four co—workers? in this frame at least four co-workers?_ in this frame at least four co-workers?- is i in this frame at least four| co-workers?- is there in this frame at least four i co-workers?- is there a in this frame at least four co—workers? yes. is there a manager co-workers? yes. is there a manager on du ? co-workers? yes. is there a manager on duty? yes- — co-workers? yes. is there a manager on duty? yes. where _ co-workers? yes. is there a manager on duty? yes. where would - co-workers? yes. is there a manager on duty? yes. where would he - co-workers? yes. is there a manager on duty? yes. where would he be? i co-workers? yes. is there a managerl on duty? yes. where would he be? he would be tucked _ on duty? yes. where would he be? he would be tucked off _ on duty? yes. where would he be? he would be tucked off in _ on duty? yes. where would he be? he would be tucked off in the _ on duty? yes. where would he be? he would be tucked off in the corner- on duty? yes. where would he be? he would be tucked off in the corner of. would be tucked off in the corner of the store, so right in the corner. usually behind his computer working and when people needed help he would help. fik. and when people needed help he would hel. �* . and when people needed help he would hel. �* , u, and when people needed help he would hel. �*, ., ~

i'm going to stop here for a moment. just for— i'm going to stop here for a moment. just for the _ i'm going to stop here for a moment. just for the record we have stopped at w _ just for the record we have stopped at w do— just for the record we have stopped at 737. do you see where you are right — at 737. do you see where you are right now, — at 737. do you see where you are right now, what is that location? the tobacco section. that right now, what is that location? the tobacco section.— right now, what is that location? the tobacco section. that is where ou sell the tobacco section. that is where you sell cigarettes _ the tobacco section. that is where you sell cigarettes and _ the tobacco section. that is where you sell cigarettes and other- you sell cigarettes and other tobacco _ you sell cigarettes and other tobacco products?— you sell cigarettes and other tobacco products? yes. we can now continue, tobacco products? is; we can now

continue, please. while tobacco products? 1j:3 we can now continue, please. while we are watching — continue, please. while we are watching this, can you tell us, it looks_ watching this, can you tell us, it looks like — watching this, can you tell us, it looks like windows on the far wall, correct? _ looks like windows on the far wall, correct? . looks like windows on the far wall, correct? yes. what street is outside those correct? 1j:3 what street is outside those windows? correct? yes. what street is outside those windows? 38. _ correct? yes. what street is outside those windows? 38. the _ correct? yes. what street is outside those windows? 38. the ones - correct? yes. what street is outside those windows? 38. the ones at - correct? yes. what street is outside j those windows? 38. the ones at the front? where _ those windows? 38. the ones at the front? where the _ those windows? 38. the ones at the front? where the bus _ those windows? 38. the ones at the front? where the bus is _ those windows? 38. the ones at the front? where the bus is at _ those windows? 38. the ones at the front? where the bus is at the - front? where the bus is at the moment _ front? where the bus is at the moment. that _ front? where the bus is at the moment. that is _ front? where the bus is at the moment. that is 38. - front? where the bus is at the moment. that is 38. it - front? where the bus is at the moment. that is 38. it is - front? where the bus is at the i moment. that is 38. it is chicago front? where the bus is at the - moment. that is 38. it is chicago in front of the — moment. that is 38. it is chicago in front of the store? _ moment. that is 38. it is chicago in front of the store? yes, _ moment. that is 38. it is chicago in front of the store? yes, chicago. i

i'm going to stop it here. for the record _ i'm going to stop it here. for the record this — i'm going to stop it here. for the record this is at 739. an individual has walked — record this is at 739. an individual has walked into the frame. this individual— has walked into the frame. this individual here. you don't have to .ive individual here. you don't have to give his— individual here. you don't have to give his name but who is that? that is the manager. _ give his name but who is that? that is the manager. he _ give his name but who is that? that is the manager. he has— give his name but who is that? that is the manager. he has come - give his name but who is that? that is the manager. he has come out i give his name but who is that? that i is the manager. he has come out from the manager— is the manager. he has come out from the manager area _ is the manager. he has come out from the manager area of _ is the manager. he has come out from the manager area of the _ is the manager. he has come out from the manager area of the store. - is the manager. he has come out from the manager area of the store. yes. i the manager area of the store. yes. we can continue, _ the manager area of the store. yes.

we can continue, please. _ if we can pause it here. mr floyd has walked — if we can pause it here. mr floyd has walked off the screen, correct? yes. ~ ., . has walked off the screen, correct? yes. . ., , ., ~' has walked off the screen, correct? yes. ~ ., , ., ,, has walked off the screen, correct? yes. ~ ., ,, the yes. where has he walked to? the cell phone — yes. where has he walked to? the cell phone area. _ yes. where has he walked to? the cell phone area. if— yes. where has he walked to? the cell phone area. if we _ yes. where has he walked to? the cell phone area. if we can - yes. where has he walked to? the| cell phone area. if we can continue.

at some point, does mr floyd make his way to the tobacco counter to make a purchase with you? yes. we will see that — make a purchase with you? yes. we will see that coming up here in a minute or two.

let me pause that right here, for the record. you are standing at the cashier area and you seem to be speaking with mr floyd, correct? correct. ~ , ., ., ., , ., correct. where you are able to understand — correct. where you are able to understand the _ correct. where you are able to understand the conversation i correct. where you are able to i understand the conversation with correct. where you are able to - understand the conversation with him at that point?—

understand the conversation with him at that point? yes. let's keep rollin: at that point? yes. let's keep rolling then. _ at that point? yes. let's keep rolling then, please. - let's stop here, for the record 7:44.49. where are you now with mr floyd? in 7:44.49. where are you now with mr flo d? ., 7:44.49. where are you now with mr flod? . ., ., floyd? in the tobacco section of the store. did floyd? in the tobacco section of the store- did you _ floyd? in the tobacco section of the store. did you sell _ floyd? in the tobacco section of the store. did you sell him _ floyd? in the tobacco section of the store. did you sell him something l store. did you sell him something there? i did- _ store. did you sell him something there? | did. a _ store. did you sell him something there? i did. a packet _ store. did you sell him something there? i did. a packet of - there? i did. a packet of cigarettes. _ there? i did. a packet of cigarettes. we _ there? i did. a packet of cigarettes. we saw - there? i did. a packet of cigarettes. we saw you i there? i did. a packet of - cigarettes. we saw you reach over there? i did. a packet of _ cigarettes. we saw you reach over to our left, cigarettes. we saw you reach over to your left. is — cigarettes. we saw you reach over to your left. is that _ cigarettes. we saw you reach over to your left, is that where _ cigarettes. we saw you reach over to your left, is that where the - your left, is that where the cigarettes are stored? two yes. had he told you at that point what he was buying?— he told you at that point what he was bu inc? , ., ~' �* was buying? yes. you lemeki didn't have any difficulty _ was buying? yes. you lemeki didn't have any difficulty understanding . have any difficulty understanding what he — have any difficulty understanding what he wanted to buy from you? no. did you _ what he wanted to buy from you? no. did you complete that transaction? yes. ~ ., ~ .,

did you complete that transaction? yes. . ., ~ ., he yes. what the mr floyd do next? he went back outside _ yes. what the mr floyd do next? he went back outside to _ yes. what the mr floyd do next? he went back outside to his _ yes. what the mr floyd do next? he went back outside to his vehicle. - went back outside to his vehicle. let it— went back outside to his vehicle. let it run— went back outside to his vehicle. let it run then. lam going i am going to freeze it here. i said i am going to freeze it here. i said i was going to let it run. we saw you holding something up, can you describe, gain for the record this is 7:45.10, describe what you were doing? 1 is 7:45.10, describe what you were doinu ? ., . is 7:45.10, describe what you were doin ? ., , ., is 7:45.10, describe what you were doinu ? ., , ., , is 7:45.10, describe what you were doinu ? .,, ., , j :: is 7:45.10, describe what you were doin ? .,, ., , ”r i , doing? i was holding up the $20 bill i had 'ust doing? i was holding up the $20 bill i had just received. _ doing? i was holding up the $20 bill i had just received. is _ doing? i was holding up the $20 bill i had just received. is it _ doing? i was holding up the $20 bill i had just received. is it something. i had 'ust received. is it something ou i had just received. is it something you always — i had just received. is it something you always do. _ i had just received. is it something you always do. or— i had just received. is it something you always do, or something - i had just received. is it something| you always do, or something about this? ., . this? no, when i saw the billl noticed it _ this? no, when i saw the billl noticed it had _ this? no, when i saw the billl noticed it had a _ this? no, when i saw the billl noticed it had a blue _ this? no, when i saw the billl noticed it had a blue pigment| this? no, when i saw the bill i i noticed it had a blue pigment to this? no, when i saw the bill i - noticed it had a blue pigment to it, kind of— noticed it had a blue pigment to it, kind of like — noticed it had a blue pigment to it, kind of like a $100 bill would have. i kind of like a $100 bill would have. lthought— kind of like a $100 bill would have. i thought that was odd and i thought it was— i thought that was odd and i thought it was fake — i thought that was odd and i thought it was fake. mr i thought that was odd and i thought it was fake. ~ , , it was fake. mr floyd is still there, correct? _

it was fake. mr floyd is still there, correct? yes. - it was fake. mr floyd is still there, correct? yes. and i it was fake. mr floyd is still. there, correct? yes. and you completed — there, correct? yes. and you completed the _ there, correct? yes. and you completed the transaction? there, correct? yes. and you i completed the transaction? yes. there, correct? yes. and you - completed the transaction? yes. upon doinu that, completed the transaction? yes. upon doing that, did he leave the store? yes. ., , ., , after you looked at the bill, he didn't leave immediately, did he? no. so that is the end of exhibit 29. i

believe the time is 7:45.51. correct. use of the timestamp on there? ., . correct. use of the timestamp on there?- we _ correct. use of the timestamp on there?- we can _ correct. use of the timestamp on there?- we can look i correct. use of the timestamp on there?- we can look after there? correct. we can look after there? correct. we can look after the video to _ there? correct. we can look after the video to determine _ there? correct. we can look after the video to determine if - there? correct. we can look after the video to determine if that i i the video to determine if that i must correct, but that is the time he left the store on this video? yes. �* , ., he left the store on this video? yes. �* i. ., ., ~' he left the store on this video? yes. �* i. ., ., ,, ., yes. after he left, did you look at the bill again? _ yes. after he left, did you look at the bill again? i— yes. after he left, did you look at the bill again? i did. _ yes. after he left, did you look at the bill again? i did. at _ yes. after he left, did you look at the bill again? i did. at the - yes. after he left, did you look at the bill again? i did. at the time | the bill again? i did. at the time ou were the bill again? i did. at the time you were working _ the bill again? i did. at the time you were working on _ the bill again? i did. at the time you were working on may - the billagain? i did. at the time you were working on may the 25th 2020, what was the store's policy of you accepting $20 bills? if it 2020, what was the store's policy of you accepting $20 bills?— you accepting $20 bills? if it is counterfeit _ you accepting $20 bills? if it is counterfeit you _ you accepting $20 bills? if it is counterfeit you have _ you accepting $20 bills? if it is counterfeit you have to - you accepting $20 bills? if it is counterfeit you have to pay i you accepting $20 bills? if it is counterfeit you have to pay forj you accepting $20 bills? if it is i counterfeit you have to pay for it out of _ counterfeit you have to pay for it out of your— counterfeit you have to pay for it out of your paycheque. so counterfeit you have to pay for it out of your paycheque.— counterfeit you have to pay for it out of your paycheque. so you are careful what _ out of your paycheque. so you are careful what you _ out of your paycheque. so you are careful what you take? _ out of your paycheque. so you are careful what you take? yes. i out of your paycheque. so you are careful what you take? yes. did i out of your paycheque. so you are i careful what you take? yes. did you think the careful what you take? yes. did you thinkthe bill— careful what you take? yes. did you think the bill would not be legitimate? what did you do? i did legitimate? what did you do? i did take it anyway _ legitimate? what did you do? i did take it anyway and _ legitimate? what did you do? i did take it anyway and i _ legitimate? what did you do? i did take it anyway and i was planning to put it— take it anyway and i was planning to put it on— take it anyway and i was planning to put it on nry— take it anyway and i was planning to put it on my tab until i second—guessed myself. as you can

see in— second—guessed myself. as you can see in the _ second—guessed myself. as you can see in the video, i kept examining itand— see in the video, i kept examining itand then— see in the video, i kept examining itand thenl— see in the video, i kept examining it and then i told my manager. when it and then i told my manager. when ou told it and then i told my manager. when you told your — it and then i told my manager. when you told your manager, _ it and then i told my manager. when you told your manager, what - it and then i told my manager. mien you told your manager, what happened next? what are to do? he you told your manager, what happened next? what are to do?— next? what are to do? he told us to co next? what are to do? he told us to to out to next? what are to do? he told us to go out to the — next? what are to do? he told us to go out to the vehicle _ next? what are to do? he told us to go out to the vehicle and _ next? what are to do? he told us to go out to the vehicle and to - next? what are to do? he told us to go out to the vehicle and to ask i next? what are to do? he told us to go out to the vehicle and to ask him | go out to the vehicle and to ask him to come _ go out to the vehicle and to ask him to come inside to discuss what just happened — to come inside to discuss what 'ust ha ened. ~ to come inside to discuss what 'ust ha--ened. ~ . ., happened. when you say vehicle, what are ou happened. when you say vehicle, what are you referring _ happened. when you say vehicle, what are you referring to? _ happened. when you say vehicle, what are you referring to? the _ happened. when you say vehicle, what are you referring to? the car, - happened. when you say vehicle, what are you referring to? the car, the i are you referring to? the car, the suv, i are you referring to? the car, the suv. i think— are you referring to? the car, the suv, | think that _ are you referring to? the car, the suv, i think that george - are you referring to? the car, the suv, i think that george floyd i are you referring to? the car, the. suv, i think that george floyd was in. ., , ., 4, ., suv, i think that george floyd was in. ., ~ ., ., | suv, i think that george floyd was in-— i could i in. how did you know that? i could see from where _ in. how did you know that? i could see from where i _ in. how did you know that? i could see from where i was _ in. how did you know that? i could see from where i was standing i in. how did you know that? i could | see from where i was standing from the store _ see from where i was standing from the store. we see from where i was standing from the store. ~ ,, ., ., ., the store. we know from the video those windows _ the store. we know from the video those windows we _ the store. we know from the video those windows we could _ the store. we know from the video those windows we could see, i the store. we know from the video those windows we could see, the l the store. we know from the video i those windows we could see, the bus, that chicago. 38 runs along the back of the store? is there a way to look out onto 38th from the store? yes. what i am asking _ out onto 38th from the store? yes. what i am asking is, _ out onto 38th from the store? yes. what i am asking is, how—

out onto 38th from the store? yes. what i am asking is, how did you know he was in that vehicle? i know he was in that vehicle? i watched him walk to it. a know he was in that vehicle? i i watched him walk to it. a pretty aood wa watched him walk to it. a pretty good way to _ watched him walk to it. a pretty good way to know. _ watched him walk to it. a pretty good way to know. you - watched him walk to it. a pretty good way to know. you saw i watched him walk to it. a pretty good way to know. you saw him i watched him walk to it. a pretty i good way to know. you saw him go into the vehicle after he made this purchase? into the vehicle after he made this urchase? . into the vehicle after he made this purchase?- so _ into the vehicle after he made this purchase? yes. so your manager, what were our purchase? yes. so your manager, what were your instructions? just _ purchase? yes. so your manager, what were your instructions? just to - purchase? yes. so your manager, what were your instructions? just to go i were your instructions? just to go out to the vehicle _ were your instructions? just to go out to the vehicle and _ were your instructions? just to go out to the vehicle and ask- were your instructions? just to go out to the vehicle and ask him i were your instructions? just to go out to the vehicle and ask him to | out to the vehicle and ask him to come _ out to the vehicle and ask him to come inside to talk to the manager. did you _ come inside to talk to the manager. did you in _ come inside to talk to the manager. did you in fact do that? yes. when he went out _ did you in fact do that? yes. when he went out there, how many times did you go out there?— he went out there, how many times did you go out there?- the i did you go out there? twice. the first time you — did you go out there? twice. the first time you went _ did you go out there? twice. the first time you went out _ did you go out there? twice. the first time you went out there, i did you go out there? twice. the| first time you went out there, did you go by yourself or with some other people? the you go by yourself or with some other people?— you go by yourself or with some other --eole? . other people? the first time, i went with one other— other people? the first time, i went with one other person. _ other people? the first time, i went with one other person. you - other people? the first time, i went with one other person. you are i other people? the first time, i went i with one other person. you are aware that there is — with one other person. you are aware that there is a — with one other person. you are aware that there is a security _ with one other person. you are aware that there is a security video - with one other person. you are aware that there is a security video on i that there is a security video on the restaurant across the street, correct? . the restaurant across the street, correct?- and _ the restaurant across the street, correct? yes. and prior to coming to court, we showed you some security

video that captured you and other employees going out to the vehicle, correct? . employees going out to the vehicle, correct? yes. and that also shows, we also used _ correct? yes. and that also shows, we also used some _ correct? yes. and that also shows, we also used some of the footage from inside the store to show when you guys go outside? yes. does that fairl and you guys go outside? yes. does that fairly and accurately depict the times when you and other employees went out to the suv about the bill? yes. ~ ., ., ., .,' went out to the suv about the bill? yes. ~ ., ., ., .g , yes. we are going to offer exhibit 31. auain, yes. we are going to offer exhibit 31- again. mr— yes. we are going to offer exhibit 31. again, mr martin, _ yes. we are going to offer exhibit 31. again, mr martin, we - yes. we are going to offer exhibit 31. again, mr martin, we are... i yes. we are going to offer exhibitl 31. again, mr martin, we are... we are auoin 31. again, mr martin, we are... we are going to take a quick stretch break _ are going to take a quick stretch break take _ are going to take a quick stretch break. take five _ are going to take a quick stretch break. take five minutes. - break. take five minutes. studio: _ break. take five minutes. srumo: the _ break. take five minutes. srumo: the judge - break. take five minutes. i studio: the judge ordering a break. take five minutes. -

studio: the judge ordering a break studio: thejudge ordering a break forfive minutes. over the last little while the jury has been shown cctv from inside cup foods, the arrest took place outside, but showing the jurors the minutes leading up before that incident and the prosecution taking the jury through seeing george floyd, the conversations he had initiated, christopher martin, the shop worker, a conversation about baseball. he recounted how the responses had been slow but they did have a conversation. at one point in the questioning, itappeared conversation. at one point in the questioning, it appeared he was high, underthe questioning, it appeared he was high, under the influence of something. at the prosecution, matthew frank, saying could you have a conversation? could you make out the exchanges? and the answer from christopher martin was yes, no difficulty understanding him. they then moved on to what happened after he bought the cigarettes and he had

used a counterfeit $20 bill. they were just going into the exchanges, because christopher martin said the company policy said that would come out of his pocket and he talked to his manager and they were about to go through the security video from outside the store when christopher martin follow george floyd out of cup foods. and that is where they have taken a break. let's bring geoffrey kramer back in. he is a federal prosecutor and has been listening to that. it was interesting, as we were shown that video and the detail was gone through and the transaction itself, what have you made of these opening minutes on day three?— minutes on day three? basically, what we have _ minutes on day three? basically, what we have is _ minutes on day three? basically, what we have is a _ minutes on day three? basically, what we have is a trial _ minutes on day three? basically, what we have is a trial within i minutes on day three? basically, what we have is a trial within a i what we have is a trial within a trial with respect to mr floyd, possibly being high. that is being explored on cross examination and the prosecution will probably clear it up later. the question for the

defence, was he high, therefore not listening, not responsive to the police officer later on when he wanted him to comply? obviously, as we have seen him questioning, there was a conversation back and forth, mr floyd could understand the witness, the witness could understand mr floyd. mr floyd may have been high on something, may have been high on something, may have been high on something, may have been drinking, whatever it might be, he was still able to understand a back and forth conversation so we will see that play out on cross examination and then redirection. hate play out on cross examination and then redirection.— then redirection. we were talking before proceedings _ then redirection. we were talking before proceedings got _ then redirection. we were talking before proceedings got under i then redirection. we were talking| before proceedings got under way then redirection. we were talking i before proceedings got under way and you were taking us through your view in what we have seen over the first couple of days, the prosecution making the point that the defence don't have to prove anything, they just have to create that issue of that. in terms of the prosecution, the way you have seen them lay out this case, you are a prosecutor, have they been doing what you would have they been doing what you would have been doing? thea;t have they been doing what you would have been doing?—

have been doing? they have, they started off strong _ have been doing? they have, they started off strong with _ have been doing? they have, they started off strong with the - have been doing? they have, they started off strong with the video i started off strong with the video and they are going through a very linear presentation. no one is questioning what happened, we all know what happened. the only issue at the end of the day is going to be whether the officer used excessive force. we will see the defence bringing up some expert witnesses later on regarding training. so the prosecutor is doing what they have to do and the defence is going to throw in whatever they can. we have already seen them indicate that mr floyd may have been on speed. he also may have been on fentanyl, which lowers someone's responsive rate. those are contradictory drugs, but it doesn't matter from a defence standpoint, theyjust need one juror. the prosecution needs 12, but the defence full beat looking to see if they can get a lower charge than the highest manslaughter charge that has been mitigated. hate the highest manslaughter charge that has been mitigated.— has been mitigated. we will come to the charues has been mitigated. we will come to the charges and _ has been mitigated. we will come to the charges and how— has been mitigated. we will come to the charges and how prosecutions i has been mitigated. we will come to l the charges and how prosecutions and the charges and how prosecutions and the defence navigate that in a

moment that you mention two particular areas that we haven't really got to in the trial so far, but we are likely to get to relatively soon. the first is the whole area around medical evidence. that is going to be absolutely critical, isn't it? also training, because we heard in the defence opening statement, the lead defence attorney say he did what he was trained to do for 18 years? exactly and that is — trained to do for 18 years? exactly and that is where _ trained to do for 18 years? exactly and that is where this _ trained to do for 18 years? exactly and that is where this trial - trained to do for 18 years? exactly and that is where this trial will i trained to do for 18 years? exactly and that is where this trial will be | and that is where this trial will be won or lost. i envisage the defence bringing in former law enforcement experts who focus on training and they will tell the jury what an officer is trying to do in that situation. there is many arguments against that, but at least it is something for a juror to hang their hat on. it is possible the defence will argue, hat on. it is possible the defence willargue, look hat on. it is possible the defence will argue, look at this from the cool light of day, put yourself in that offers a's place at that moment. mr floyd was handcuffed and

on the ground, so it is a difficult argument. but the defence doesn't have to win that argument, theyjust have to win that argument, theyjust have to win that argument, theyjust have to create a bit of a doubt. is have to create a bit of a doubt. is that true also with the area of medical evidence?— that true also with the area of medical evidence? exactly. whether or not mr medical evidence? exactly. whether or rrot mr floyd _ medical evidence? exactly. whether or not mr floyd was _ medical evidence? exactly. whether or not mr floyd was on _ medical evidence? exactly. whether or not mr floyd was on some - medical evidence? exactly. whether or not mr floyd was on some sort i medical evidence? exactly. whether or not mr floyd was on some sort ofj or not mr floyd was on some sort of speed which with them and you up or give him more energy orfentanyl, which does the exact opposite. it doesn't matter, it may not have had any impact, but mr floyd was on something, which would be the argument and therefore they start arguing for a lower charge. you are looking for anything you can, because no one is disputing the facts of what happened. you referenced _ facts of what happened. you referenced it _ facts of what happened. you referenced it awhile - facts of what happened. you referenced it awhile ago, charges. two counts of murder, a manslaughter charge as well. as a prosecutor, what are you doing? how do you approach that, the fact you have multiple charges, what are you aiming for at multiple charges, what are you aiming forat the multiple charges, what are you aiming for at the start of these early stages?—

early stages? that is a good question- — early stages? that is a good question. it _ early stages? that is a good question. it is _ early stages? that is a good question. it is a _ early stages? that is a good question. it is a calculus i early stages? that is a good| question. it is a calculus and early stages? that is a good i question. it is a calculus and it is a gamble. the prosecution could have just put in one charge, murder and then see what happens at the jury. it is risky. they bring in lower charges. if thejury it is risky. they bring in lower charges. if the jury cannot agree on murder, they will agree a manslaughter perhaps. it allows for some compromise in thejury room. the defendant will not go to jail for as long, but at least there would be a conviction. prosecutors most of the time will include these lesser included charges. does most of the time will include these lesser included charges.— lesser included charges. does that same dynamic _ lesser included charges. does that same dynamic work _ lesser included charges. does that same dynamic work for _ lesser included charges. does that same dynamic work for the - lesser included charges. does that | same dynamic work for the defence team as well? it same dynamic work for the defence team as well?— team as well? it does. if you are a defence lawyer. — team as well? it does. if you are a defence lawyer, you _ team as well? it does. if you are a defence lawyer, you just _ team as well? it does. if you are a defence lawyer, you just want i team as well? it does. if you are a defence lawyer, you just want to i defence lawyer, you just want to knock out the top charge. if you can get anything lower than that, if you can get a manslaughter, it is a win for this defendant, who is facing an uphill battle. if it was all or nothing onjust a murder charge, it is risky and both charge. we nothing on just a murder charge, it is risky and both charge.— is risky and both charge. we don't know the answer _ is risky and both charge. we don't know the answer to _ is risky and both charge. we don't know the answer to my _ is risky and both charge. we don't know the answer to my next i is risky and both charge. we don't i know the answer to my next question, but what do you think, do we expect

to see derek chauvin go into the witness box?— to see derek chauvin go into the witness box? that is the $64,000 cuestion. witness box? that is the $64,000 question- it — witness box? that is the $64,000 question- it is _ witness box? that is the $64,000 question. it is one _ witness box? that is the $64,000 question. it is one thing _ witness box? that is the $64,000 question. it is one thing for- question. it is one thing for defence to put an expert regarding training, how an officer is trained, but was this officer afraid for his life or those around him, in fear for his safety? only one person in the world can answer that and that is the defendant. it is a very risky move to cut a defendant on the stand. jurors want to hear both sides, people want to hear both sides, people want to hear both sides of an argument. the us system, the defendant does not have to testify and the jury will be instructed not to consider whether or not a defendant testifies. but it is human nature, you want to hear that side of the story. for is human nature, you want to hear that side of the story.— that side of the story. for the defence. _ that side of the story. for the defence. as — that side of the story. for the defence, as you _ that side of the story. for the defence, as you will - that side of the story. for the defence, as you will lead i that side of the story. for the defence, as you will lead to i that side of the story. for the defence, as you will lead to it that side of the story. for the i defence, as you will lead to it will be an opportunity for him to say he didn't mean to kill george floyd, perhaps he could talk about personally being afraid. what it

also fundamentally does, it opens the door to the prosecution to ask all manner of questions about his behaviour that day?— all manner of questions about his behaviour that day? absolutely. it is not a bad _ behaviour that day? absolutely. it is not a bad witness _ behaviour that day? absolutely. it is not a bad witness to _ behaviour that day? absolutely. it is not a bad witness to put - behaviour that day? absolutely. it is not a bad witness to put on. i is not a bad witness to put on. at some point, at the nine minute mark, whether it is a minute and five seconds, at some point it becomes unreasonable for that officer to be afraid for his safety and that is the danger of cross—examination on this defendant. in the danger of cross-examination on this defendant.— this defendant. in terms of the video, of course _ this defendant. in terms of the video, of course that _ this defendant. in terms of the video, of course that remains i video, of course that remains obviously the strongest plank of evidence for the prosecution. we saw it played at the start of opening statements in full and it was exactly as we all know, incredibly distressing to watch it in full. how careful do you think the prosecutors

need to be going forward aboutjust how many times they were perhaps replayed that in terms of the whole notion about whether you end up desensitising the jury? you notion about whether you end up desensitising the jury?— desensitising the “my? you are exactly right. — desensitising the “my? you are exactly right. if— desensitising the jury? you are exactly right. if you _ desensitising the jury? you are exactly right. if you play - desensitising the jury? you are exactly right. if you play it - desensitising the jury? you are exactly right. if you play it too | exactly right. if you play it too many times, you do become desensitised. play it once and then you will see snippets here and there. then in closing arguments, they will go back to it. but i can guarantee you, thatjury will watch the video in the jury room. you don't want to show it to them a dozen times. a few times, is fine but nine minutes is an eternity. if we sat here for nine minutes, it would go on for ever and that is what thejury is would go on for ever and that is what the jury is going to be faced with. it what the 'ury is going to be faced with. . , , what the 'ury is going to be faced with. ., , , ., ., with. it was interesting on that first day when _ with. it was interesting on that first day when you _ with. it was interesting on that first day when you saw - with. it was interesting on that first day when you saw laid - with. it was interesting on that| first day when you saw laid out, with. it was interesting on that - first day when you saw laid out, the strategy from both sides. because the prosecution, and you will know this as a prosecutor, you could see weaved into so many of the introductory thoughts, what they anticipate from the defence. because

you were talking about the drug use, whether there was a heart condition or arrhythmia and they address that right at the early stages whilst also checks the use of the video, in also checks the use of the video, in a sense saying, look at the video and bear that in mind as you listen to these defences?— to these defences? absolutely. whether or _ to these defences? absolutely. whether or not _ to these defences? absolutely. whether or not mr— to these defences? absolutely. whether or not mr floyd - to these defences? absolutely. whether or not mr floyd was i to these defences? absolutely. | whether or not mr floyd was on to these defences? absolutely. - whether or not mr floyd was on some sort of substance, that becomes mildly interesting, but is it relevant when he's handcuffed and on the ground. whether he was sober as a judge, the ground. whether he was sober as ajudge, orwhether the ground. whether he was sober as a judge, or whether he was on something, it doesn't matter regarding to the jury, because the officer used excessive force. but if you are the defence, it is something to hang your hat on, that perhaps mr floyd wasn't compliant because of the drugs in his system. just try to convince onejuror to the drugs in his system. just try to convince one juror to hang tight for a lesser included charge. what convince one juror to hang tight for a lesser included charge. what about the wider significance _ a lesser included charge. what about the wider significance of _ a lesser included charge. what about the wider significance of this - the wider significance of this trial? around the world people watching the events in minneapolis,

i know you are a former prosecutor, i know you are a former prosecutor, i don't know in terms of high her profile your cases have been, but tell me about the pressures on the legal teams knowing that so many people are watching?— legal teams knowing that so many people are watching? there is a lot. i have done — people are watching? there is a lot. i have done a _ people are watching? there is a lot. i have done a few _ people are watching? there is a lot. i have done a few high-profile - people are watching? there is a lot. i have done a few high-profile cases i have done a few high—profile cases of torture in chicago with police officers. i tried the conrad black trial, which had a fair amount of international media attention here international media attention here in chicago. there is a lot of pressure on the prosecutors, don't read it by yourself at night. go in and do your work and the evidence will speakfor itself, and do your work and the evidence will speak for itself, the evidence is what wins cases. it would be naive to think the added pressure doesn't at least filter into the courtroom. in doesn't at least filter into the courtroom-— doesn't at least filter into the courtroom. , ., courtroom. in terms of the wider significance _ courtroom. in terms of the wider significance of _ courtroom. in terms of the wider significance of this _ courtroom. in terms of the wider significance of this trial - courtroom. in terms of the wider significance of this trial in - significance of this trial in america, how would you assess it? $5 america, how would you assess it? is any casual observer has seen, over the last few years in the united states we have had far too many incidents of police officers

shooting, killing, injuring defendants. some of them have been armed so the killings were justified. some of them, frankly, have not. you speak about being desensitised. we run the fear in the united states of being desensitised to these kind of cases. while this has galvanised a lot of action and protest in the us, i am not a fortune teller, but i think it is not hard to say that this is going to happen again. there are some systematic things the department of justice and local law enforcement can do, training is one of them. hiring is another one. but this is not going to end with the trial. you mention training, how much has changed in the last 12 months? i know different states organise things differently, but more broadly, is there any sense that in terms of basic police training, chokehold, things are moving? i chokehold, things are moving? i think there is. i have done some

police reform work because of the police reform work because of the police officer cases i have prosecuted. ec reforms —— you see reforms, chokehold, training, affecting hiring people that are little more mature, a little more season. diversification of hiring, all these things factor into it. but again, it is notjust one item that solves police brutality or police interactions with the community. it is a whole host of things. having said that, there isn't a person i know that would want to be in a police officer's shoes in a big city nowadays. it is a very difficult job. i nowadays. it is a very difficult 'ob. ,., ., . job. i saw that reflected even in testimony _ job. i saw that reflected even in testimony as — job. i saw that reflected even in testimony as people _ job. i saw that reflected even in testimony as people watch - job. i saw that reflected even in testimony as people watch the l testimony as people watch the opening couple of days of this trial. to state with us, ijust want to explain to any viewers joining us on bbc news what we are watching, what we're to see. i want to go back

to minneapolis and show the live pictures from the courtroom. they have had about half an hour's worth of evidence, the tail end of the firefighter evidence. but they then moved to christopher martin. he works in the shop, in cup foods. the george floyd arrest was exactly outside that store. he had been into the store, he tried to buy cigarettes in there. they have had about 25 to 30 minutes of testimony from krista martin —— christopher martin, one of the shop workers who had a conversation with george floyd about baseball, selling him cigarettes and about the $20 note that was used. and that is where the judge intervened to have a recess. he said it was five minutes but that was a little while ago. the shot is on the crest and it will stay there until the jury returns with the legal teams and the judge. i was

mentioning that shop worker, christopher martin, some of the evidence he has given. let's hear more of something from the last half an hour. ~ , ., ., more of something from the last half an hour. ~ i. ., .., an hour. when you are communicating with him, an hour. when you are communicating with him. can — an hour. when you are communicating with him. can you _ an hour. when you are communicating with him, can you describe _ an hour. when you are communicating with him, can you describe to - an hour. when you are communicating with him, can you describe to the - with him, can you describe to the jurors what his demeanour was like, what his condition was like? imilton jurors what his demeanour was like, what his condition was like?- what his condition was like? when i asked him if— what his condition was like? when i asked him if he _ what his condition was like? when i asked him if he played _ what his condition was like? when i asked him if he played baseball- what his condition was like? when i asked him if he played baseball he| asked him if he played baseball he went on— asked him if he played baseball he went on to — asked him if he played baseball he went on to respond to that, but the kind of— went on to respond to that, but the kind of took— went on to respond to that, but the kind of took him a little long to .et kind of took him a little long to get to— kind of took him a little long to get to what he was trying to say. so it would _ get to what he was trying to say. so it would appear that he was high. you just— it would appear that he was high. you just had some signs that you thought he was under the influence of something?— thought he was under the influence of something? yes. all right, but ou are of something? yes. all right, but you are able _ of something? yes. all right, but you are able to _ of something? yes. all right, but you are able to carry _ of something? yes. all right, but you are able to carry on some conversation with him?- you are able to carry on some conversation with him? yes. just a little of those _ conversation with him? yes. just a little of those exchanges. but for now, a final thought, it is interesting and i think you started at the beginning by saying the prosecution where taking the jury step—by—step and e so that now with

the cross examination, taking their time to allow the jury to feel the real time of what actually happened that day? real time of what actually happened that da ? ., ., .,. , that day? you are exactly right, the are that day? you are exactly right, they are trying _ that day? you are exactly right, they are trying to _ that day? you are exactly right, they are trying to put _ that day? you are exactly right, they are trying to put the - that day? you are exactly right, they are trying to put the jury . that day? you are exactly right, j they are trying to put the jury in they are trying to put the jury in the shoes of mr floyd, at least as an observer at the moment. you have got camera footage, you have got the eyewitness, the shop clerc in respect of the counterfeit bill. they are doing what every us prosecutor, what every global prosecutor, what every global prosecutor, because i train prosecutors from other countries, we try to put the juror in that moment as best as you can. i try to put the juror in that moment as best as you can.— as best as you can. i know you are auoin to as best as you can. i know you are going to stay _ as best as you can. i know you are going to stay with _ as best as you can. i know you are going to stay with us _ as best as you can. i know you are going to stay with us and - as best as you can. i know you are going to stay with us and be - as best as you can. i know you are going to stay with us and be back| going to stay with us and be back with us when they resume in the courtroom. we are going to pose for a moment. we will be back as soon as thejury are back a moment. we will be back as soon as the jury are back taking their seats to hear more of the testimony. i willjust to hear more of the testimony. i will just show you the live to hear more of the testimony. i willjust show you the live shot again because they have paused in minneapolis. we think they will be backin minneapolis. we think they will be back in the next little while. join us again in a moment or two because

we will have more from the court case life in minneapolis. don't go away. hello, there. not as much blue sky around today but it's another warm day for the time of year for most of england and wales. 23—24 across eastern parts of england. cool of the scotland and northern ireland, more cloud around, but not much rain left over, it's been a drier day. we have colder air and that will move southwards in the next few days. temperatures this afternoon, late afternoon lower than they were yesterday in scotland and northern ireland. 23 and 2a across eastern parts of england. colder than yesterday, around the north coast of cornwall and pembrokeshire with low cloud. that will push away and overnight we will see the band of

cloud moving down away from scotland across northern ireland and into northern england and down towards the midlands. with the clear skies and the colder air following into northern scotland, temperatures could be close to freezing. it should be dry because this area of high pressure is building down across the uk but at the same time it is tracking down the colder air from the north and we start to pick up from the north and we start to pick up a win from the north sea. a grey start across parts of northern england and the midlands, that cloud will thin and break up and it will be a dry day across the uk with spells of sunshine. worth looking at the winds, because we don't have the warmer south—westerly wind any more. instead it is a north—easterly and even an easterly wind. more breeze on thursday and are significantly colder day across northern and eastern parts of the uk. highest temperatures towards the south—west are 18 or 19 degrees. by the time we get to good friday we are in the colder air and it looks like it is going to be a dry day. some sunshine at times and most of that towards the western side of the uk. there is

temperatures no better than 13 or 1a degrees down those north sea coast. you're struggling to get into double figures. through the rest of the easter weekend it will remain cold with the risk of frost at night and by monday, some wintry showers around as well. we are starting on a drying out because of the area of high pressure. as we head into easter sunday, the weather front moves down across the uk and brings a bit of rain. behind that, the air coming all the way from the arctic and it is that that will bring the cold air and the risk of some snow.

hello, this is bbc news. the headlines... a major report says social class and family structure play a bigger part than race in determining people's lives in the uk. the prime minister says the government will assesses the implications of the controversial report. but campaigners say they feel 'deeply�* let down. the jury in the trial of derek chauvin, the former policeman accused of murdering george floyd, hears from the sales

assistant who served him shortly before his death. don'tjoin large groups — and take your litter home — the message to people out enjoying the sun, as one council decides to close some of its parks. as germany limits its use of the astrazeneca vaccine to the over 60s, europe braces itself for a third covid wave. the last day of shielding in england and wales for millions of people. and it's just two weeks until outdoor visitor attractions like zoos and theme parks can reopen in england after a tough year for the industry. we are going to start here with the

story that dominates in the uk. race and racism have become less important factors in explaining social disparities in the uk — that's the controversial conclusion of a review commissioned by the government. the commission on race and ethnic disparities, set up after the black lives matter protests, found that social class and family structure played a bigger role in determining people's lives. the commission says concerns that the uk is institutionally racist are not borne out by the evidence — but that overt racism remains. this afternoon the prime minister, borisjohnson said, "it is now right that the government considers their recommendations in detail, and assesses the implications for future government policy." but campaigners say they feel 'massively let down' by the report — and warned the government does not have the confidence of black and minority ethnic communities. greg mackenzie reports. last summer's black lives matter protests were some of the biggest seen in the uk.

black lives matter! hundreds of thousands of people lined the streets up and down the country calling for change. it was triggered by the killing of george floyd in america. the government reacted and commissioned a report looking into racial disparities, which it has published today. no—one in the report is saying racism doesn't exist. we found anecdotal evidence of this. however, what we did find was the evidence of actual institutional racism, no. that wasn't there, we didn't find that in our report. the report concludes race and racism have become less important factors in explaining social disparities. but its author admits while racism does exist in this country, the uk is not institutionally racist, which has angered some race campaigners. the two people appointed to lead

an independent commission were on record denying structural racism and institutional racism 15 years ago. so it's no surprise that we have tony sewell saying he didn't find any evidence of institutional racism. well, he denied its existence 15 years ago. he is hardly going to change his mind. the commission has made 2a recommendations, which include the acronym bame, that is black, asian and minority ethnic, should no longer be used. other recommendations include creating a police workforce that represents the communities they serve. and increasing the legitimacy and accountability of stop and search through body—worn video cameras. the prime minister asked them to do this report because although he thinks that there is a good deal of progress that has been made in recent years, there is a lot more to do. and so we will be listening and reading very carefully the recommendations from the commissioners about what more the country needs to do to tackle inequalities.

the commission believes that if these recommendations are implemented, it will give a further burst of momentum to the story of the uk's progress to a successful, multiethnic and multicultural community. but some race campaigners believe we are some way off actually achieving this. greg mckenzie, bbc news. let's speak now to jabeer butt, chief executive of the race equality foundation, which works for race equality in public services. good afternoon. your thoughts on what you have been able to digest from the report? i’m what you have been able to digest from the report?— what you have been able to digest from the report? i'm surprised that my colleagues _ from the report? i'm surprised that my colleagues are _ from the report? i'm surprised that my colleagues are saying _ from the report? i'm surprised that my colleagues are saying they - from the report? i'm surprised that my colleagues are saying they are i my colleagues are saying they are disappointed in the report, because the truth of the matter is, this is what we expected from this report. we thought it was going to deny the existence of institutional racism and that it was going to question much of the evidence that has been collected over the past ten years

over how those inequalities have worsened in the period of austerity. it says, the chairman says that the issueis it says, the chairman says that the issue is complex, it says race inequality is hugely complex and then points to lots of different factors that play into that that we just heard about including family influence, culture and religion. are you saying that that statement is just not right and that the panel has got it totally wrong? it is not completely _ has got it totally wrong? it is not completely wrong _ has got it totally wrong? it is not completely wrong but _ has got it totally wrong? it is not completely wrong but it - has got it totally wrong? it is not completely wrong but it is - has got it totally wrong? it is not completely wrong but it is a - has got it totally wrong? it is not| completely wrong but it is a false way of representing it. the report identifies family and socioeconomic status and also geography, but if we look at geography, for example, we understand that the way communities have settled in this country has been impacted by the impact of racism so we know for a long while that black, asian and minorities did not have access to council housing

because of sons and daughters policies which prioritised indigenous communities and equally we know that certain places were red lines so you could not get a mortgage if you were from a black, asian or minority community, and some of those things continue to this day. the caribbean community is much more likely to be in the private rented sector than in the owner occupier places and that has had a long—term impact, especially now that rents are growing up —— going up dramatically on hand are having a major impact on your wealth, so that experience of inequality from the past continues into this day and into old age, when you are on a fixed income, yet the costs of living are going to continue to rise.— costs of living are going to continue to rise. ., ., ., continue to rise. you have outlined some very — continue to rise. you have outlined some very clear— continue to rise. you have outlined some very clear straightforward - some very clear straightforward examples there, and i have listened to a lot of interviews to date with

various people who played a part in drawing up this report, and there is a theme in what they are saying which is, no one is saying the situation in the uk is perfect and no one is denying that racism exists in the uk and the check makes it very clear, but there are lots of positives and should we not be learning from those positives and expanding them and making a more egalitarian society in the uk? is there no scope for looking at where policies have worked and drawing from the positives?— policies have worked and drawing from the positives? undoubtedly if that is what _ from the positives? undoubtedly if that is what the _ from the positives? undoubtedly if that is what the report _ from the positives? undoubtedly if that is what the report was - from the positives? undoubtedly if that is what the report was trying l that is what the report was trying to do, i would be at the forefront supporting it because i think that is the only way we progress. it is not good enough to just say what is wrong, we have got to identify what works and how it improves, but that is not what the report does. for example it focuses on the stresses families have and lays the blame at family breakdown but what we have seenin family breakdown but what we have seen in the last ten years is a

dramatic increase in stress experienced by families. families with in work poverty, that has increased dramatically in that time, and that means it's a struggle to maintain the daily challenges of life, if you are having to manage money, and we know from the work of the joseph rowntree foundation and the joseph rowntree foundation and the resolution foundation is that has had a disproportionate impact on black and minority ethnic families with children. so, yes commit we are going to say let's learn from what works, we can do differently, let's do that but this is not what the report does comic seems to go out of its way to deny anything that has been the result of policies that put in place —— what the report does, it seems to go out of its way. so in place -- what the report does, it seems to go out of its way. so what do ou seems to go out of its way. so what do you feel — seems to go out of its way. so what do you feel will _ seems to go out of its way. so what do you feel will be _ seems to go out of its way. so what do you feel will be the _ seems to go out of its way. so what do you feel will be the result - seems to go out of its way. so what do you feel will be the result of- do you feel will be the result of this report? the government says it

is looking at the recommendations. what will that mean in the future, do you feel?— what will that mean in the future, do you feel? firstly i hope that we aet a do you feel? firstly i hope that we get a minister— do you feel? firstly i hope that we get a minister on _ do you feel? firstly i hope that we get a minister on to _ do you feel? firstly i hope that we get a minister on to explain - do you feel? firstly i hope that we get a minister on to explain what l get a minister on to explain what the positive story about slavery is, it is shocking this statement in this report that suggests that somehow there is a more positive story to be told around the experience of slavery and i'm waiting to hear which ministers actually approved the inclusion of that in this report. more importantly, i hope the report will go the way of the integration report from a few years ago and be forgotten because of its poor evidence base. there's a lot of important work taking place at the moment and we have seen some of that come to fruition in the response to the vaccination roll out and i hope thatis the vaccination roll out and i hope that is what we build on rather than this report. that is what we build on rather than this re ort. ., that is what we build on rather than this reort. ., ., ., , this report. thanks for 'oining us. the chief executive _ this report. thanks for 'oining us. the chief executive of h this report. thanks forjoining us.

the chief executive of the - this report. thanks forjoining us. the chief executive of the race i the chief executive of the race equality foundation there with his response to that report today. we have continuing reaction to that major study out today. more about that later. germany is suspending use of the oxford—astrazeneca covid vaccine for people under the age of 60 because of a very small number of cases of blood clots in people who've had the jab. both the eu and uk medicine regulators say the vaccine is safe, and the benefits outweigh the risks. it comes as europe faces a third wave of coronavirus. nick beake reports. germany, like the rest of europe, is desperate to boost production of covid vaccines so the opening of this brand—new biontech factory is welcome news. but there is now yet another blow for the astrazeneca shot. after resuming its use a fortnight

ago, germany says it will stop giving it to the under 60s because of the risk of rare blood clots, even though astrazeneca and international regulators say it is safe. translation: the vaccination is the most important tool - against the coronavirus. having several vaccines available is good and it's a great scientific achievement. we do not face the question astrazeneca or nothing, we have several vaccines available. daily vaccination rates in france are picking up, but not quickly enough to curb a third wave of the virus. intensive care doctors in paris are working flat out and some are calling for tougher covid restrictions. translation: we must prevent the virus from spreading. - we cannot do that with half measures. these 50 shades of measures. they're not working. in two weeks we still won't see any change so we must go back into lockdown and sadly this lockdown will have to last for several weeks.

that's something president macron resisted at the start of the year and he insists he took the right decision. but tonight he will address the french people about how they will cope with the darkening picture. elsewhere in europe the outlook is equally bleak, poland has reported its highest daily deaths this year so far. the british strain of the virus is responsible for more than 80% of cases. there are no intensive care beds free within a 150 kilometre radius of the capital warsaw. hungary has been vaccinating faster than many other eu countries by using the chinese and russian vaccines, but it is suffering one of the worst infection rates in the world. the virus is spreading across the continent. vaccination suspicion and shortages remain. mainland europe feels far away from the easing of restrictions the likes of the uk is now starting to enjoy. nick beake, bbc news, brussels.

the european medicines agency has been meeting as part of its review of the cases of blood clots. the agency reiterated that there's no scientific proof that the vaccine causes blood clots. regulators insist it's safe and the benefits outweigh the risks. at present the experts have advised us that they have not been able to identify specific risk factors including age, gender or previous medical history of clotting disorders for these very rare events. as i mentioned previously, because the link with the vaccine has not yet been proven, but it is possible and further analysis is still ongoing. according to the current scientific knowledge there is no evidence that would support

restricting the use of this vaccine in any population. a new study suggests the pfizer biontech covid—19 jab is "100% effective and well tolerated" among children aged 12 to 15. pfizer said it now plans to seek regulatory approval for the vaccine in this age group. our health correspondent jim reed told us more. pfizer have been trialling their vaccine on children and this is the first study results we have seen back from children. as you'd imagine, very positive results, so 100% effective at stopping covid in the 12 to 15 age group. they studied just over 2,000 children. pfizer say they hope vaccinations can begin in the united states of school age children just before the next school year, so in september. interesting because astrazeneca have been running a similar study in the uk to see if that is the case. some very interesting ethical issues, children are not particularly affected by covid,

so the reason to vaccinate them would not be to protect children from the disease. it's transmission? that is right, it is to stop it in the general community. so we need to come to a decision as a society whether it is something we want or need to do. a major report says social class and family structure play a bigger part than race in determining people's lives in the uk. as germany limits its use of the astrazeneca vaccine to the over 60s, europe braces itself for a third covid wave. don'tjoin large groups — and take your litter home — the message to people out enjoying the sun — as one council decides to close some of its parks. the jury in the trial of derek chauvin, the former policeman accused of murdering george floyd hears from the sales assistant who served him minutes before he was arrested and died.

an update on the market numbers for you — here's how london's and frankfurt ended the day. the ftse and the dax both down. the nominations havejust been announced for this year's brit awards, the annual awards which recognise the best in british pop music. our music reporter mark savagejoins me. who are the frontrunners? normally ou have who are the frontrunners? normally you have one _ who are the frontrunners? normally you have one person _ who are the frontrunners? normally you have one person who _ who are the frontrunners? normally you have one person who steams i who are the frontrunners? normally . you have one person who steams ahead of the rest of the competition but that doesn't always guarantee you

anything, in 2001 craig david was up for six awards but came away with nothing at the end of the night, but this year there are five acts who have three nominations each. the front runner is probably dua lipa, she had the biggest british album last year, she is up for best british female, best british single and also best british album. she's the to beat. some other interesting people in their —— she is the one to beat. there is a nottingham grime duo, and of course celeste who won the rising star award last year at the rising star award last year at the brits, she was also nominated for an oscar this year. overachieving, i love her, she's terrific! # you have got somebody calling

# you have got somebody calling # you have got somebody calling # you think you're somebody... some surrises # you think you're somebody... some surprises in — # you think you're somebody... some surprises in the _ # you think you're somebody... some surprises in the nominations, - # you think you're somebody... fine surprises in the nominations, as well. one of the interesting things, the awards change their roles to reflect the fact streaming has changed music into a singles market, so a lot of people did not have to release an album to be eligible for those big prizes like best male and best female and the main beneficiary is a producer called joel corry who had a huge hit single last year in the summer. he has basically come from being a cast member on a reality show, geordie shore is, to becoming a three times nominee in the brit awards, and he said he would not have believed this was going to happen to him if you had told him a few years ago, and to be nominated three times has in his mind. last year they cancelled the best international group, no one is

sure why, but has been reinstated this year and bts, the biggest selling artists in the world, they have got their first ever brit awards nomination. interesting, cate . o awards nomination. interesting, category is _ awards nomination. interesting, category is back. _ awards nomination. interesting, category is back. last _ awards nomination. interesting, category is back. last year - awards nomination. interesting, j category is back. last year there was criticism about not enough women being on the shortlist. i seem to remember that as a debate. we have already mentioned celeste and you have also mentioned dua lipa so this is a positive year for women. it is almost 180 _ is a positive year for women. it s almost 180 degrees turn from last to come at last year there were no women nominated at all from the meat in the best album category but this yearfour in the best album category but this year four of the five —— there were no women nominated at all in the best album category but this year you have four out of the five who are women.

that was arlo parks. it is a more diverse list and that is something they have been trying to achieve. another thing, they have been trying to achieve. anotherthing, sam they have been trying to achieve. another thing, sam smith, the singer who announced he was identifying as non—binary, did not put any albums because they did not feel they fitted into the best male or the best female category. the brit awards said they were looking at scrapping the gender—based categories but so far that hasn't happened. categories but so far that hasn't ha ened. , categories but so far that hasn't happened-— categories but so far that hasn't ha--ened. , ~ ., happened. interesting. and a quick thouuht happened. interesting. and a quick thought before _ happened. interesting. and a quick thought before we _ happened. interesting. and a quick thought before we let _ happened. interesting. and a quick thought before we let you - happened. interesting. and a quick thought before we let you go, - happened. interesting. and a quick thought before we let you go, are i thought before we let you go, are they saying much about how they actually plan to stage any of this? the oscars, they are trying to still work it out, quite frankly, they have said they do not want acceptance speeches on zoom, so this is a tough year for someone trying to organise something glitzy and glamorous. the to organise something glitzy and

glamorous-— to organise something glitzy and clamorous. , ., glamorous. the viewing figures for award ceremonies _ glamorous. the viewing figures for award ceremonies have _ glamorous. the viewing figures for| award ceremonies have plummeted because people are not interested in award ceremonies by zoom because they want to see glamour on the red carpet and people in amazing dresses. the photo galleries on the websites. the brit awards have not announced much and their ambition is to hold a live show, the first concert in 02 to hold a live show, the first concert in o2 arena in over a year, and the gauntlet has been lain down to them by the grammy awards. they did do a live show in los angeles and they filmed it likejools and they filmed it like jools holland's tv show, so the artists were arranged in a circle and the camera panned between them and that felt like a proper egg production and that is something the brit awards will have been watching closely —— proper big production. they did well, actually. i imagine that cost a pretty penny, so we will see what they come up with. mark savage, thanks forjoining us. our music reporter talking about some

very strong categories this year for the brit awards. the nominations recently announced. now to other matters... students at a secondary school in central london have staged a protest against their school's uniform policy, after claims it w as "racist" new rules imposed at pimlico academy last summer, include a ban on afro haircuts and requires students to wear more formal attire. a spokesperson for future academies which runs the school has defended its uniform policy. now here on bbc news, we can rejoin bbc world for further coverage of the trial of derek chauvin,

charged with the murder of george floyd in minneapolis. can we pause here forjust a moment. the individual in the white t—shirt initially— the individual in the white t—shirt initially went to the driver's side, correct? — initially went to the driver's side, correct? ., . initially went to the driver's side, correct?- you _ initially went to the driver's side, correct?- you are - initially went to the driver's side, i correct?- you are standing correct? correct. you are standing next to the — correct? correct. you are standing next to the suv? _ correct? correct. you are standing next to the suv? correct. - correct? correct. you are standing next to the suv? correct. the - next to the suv? correct. the individual _ next to the suv? correct. the individual went _ next to the suv? correct. the individual went to _ next to the suv? correct. the individual went to the - next to the suv? correct. the i individual went to the passenger side door— individual went to the passenger side door which was open? correct. could ou side door which was open? correct. could you hear _ side door which was open? correct. could you hear the _ side door which was open? correct. could you hear the conversation? i side door which was open? correct. | could you hear the conversation? at this could you hear the conversation? this moment could you hear the conversation? it this moment in time i was not able to hear it. �* . ., this moment in time i was not able to hear it. �*, ., ,., to hear it. let's run the video some more, to hear it. let's run the video some more. please- _ to hear it. let's run the video some more, please. now— to hear it. let's run the video some more, please. now if— to hear it. let's run the video some more, please. now if we _ to hear it. let's run the video some more, please. now if we can - to hear it. let's run the video some more, please. now if we can pausej to hear it. let's run the video some l more, please. now if we can pause it here _ more, please. now if we can pause it here 2022~ _ more, please. now if we can pause it here. 2022. you walked up to the

passenger— here. 2022. you walked up to the passenger side of the suv. were you able to— passenger side of the suv. were you able to hear— passenger side of the suv. were you able to hear the conversations that the individual in the white t—shirt was having — the individual in the white t—shirt was having with the occupants? correct — was having with the occupants? correct. ., .., was having with the occupants? correct. ., . ., ., ., correct. you could hear what the occupants _ correct. you could hear what the occupants of _ correct. you could hear what the occupants of the _ correct. you could hear what the occupants of the vehicle - correct. you could hear what the occupants of the vehicle was - correct. you could hear what the i occupants of the vehicle was saying and doing? — occupants of the vehicle was saying and doinu ? ., . occupants of the vehicle was saying and doing?- so _ occupants of the vehicle was saying and doing?- so what - occupants of the vehicle was saying l and doing?- so what occurred and doing? correct. so what occurred durin: this and doing? correct. so what occurred during this period _ and doing? correct. so what occurred during this period at _ and doing? correct. so what occurred during this period at the _ and doing? correct. so what occurred during this period at the suv? - and doing? correct. so what occurred during this period at the suv? the i during this period at the suv? the second during this period at the suv? second time i during this period at the suv? tue: second time i went out, the during this period at the suv? tue second time i went out, the person in the passenger seat was doing most of the talking and they said they wanted to just talk to george and the person of the passenger seat so, thatis the person of the passenger seat so, that is not me. he also tried to use a fake bill, they said, and he ripped it and put it on the ground, so he was just explaining what had happened. you so he was 'ust explaining what had ha ened. :, so he was 'ust explaining what had ha ened, ., happened. you said the passenger seat, the front _ happened. you said the passenger seat, the front passenger - happened. you said the passenger seat, the front passenger seat? i seat, the front passenger seat? correct — seat, the front passenger seat? correct. , , :, seat, the front passenger seat? correct. , :, :, , correct. did you have any interaction _ correct. did you have any interaction with _ correct. did you have any interaction with mr - correct. did you have any

interaction with mr floyd | correct. did you have any l interaction with mr floyd at correct. did you have any - interaction with mr floyd at that time _ interaction with mr floyd at that time directly? i interaction with mr floyd at that time directly?— time directly? i do not recall. exhibit 31 _ time directly? i do not recall. exhibit 31 now. _ time directly? i do not recall. exhibit 31 now. let's - time directly? i do not recall. exhibit 31 now. let's run - time directly? i do not recall. exhibit 31 now. let's run this. i'm going to pause it here real quickly — i'm going to pause it here real quickly. 2234, for the record. the individual— quickly. 2234, for the record. the individual in — quickly. 2234, for the record. the individual in the white t—shirt bent down _ individual in the white t—shirt bent down to— individual in the white t—shirt bent down to pick something up. he individual in the white t-shirt bent down to pick something up. he was ickin: u- down to pick something up. he was picking up the _ down to pick something up. he was picking up the fake _ down to pick something up. he was picking up the fake bill— down to pick something up. he was picking up the fake bill which - down to pick something up. he was picking up the fake bill which the i picking up the fake bill which the individual in the passenger seat had tried to use. it individual in the passenger seat had tried to use-— tried to use. it was torn in half? correct. let's _ tried to use. it was torn in half? correct. let's keep _ tried to use. it was torn in half? correct. let's keep running - tried to use. it was torn in half? correct. let's keep running 31, i correct. let's keep running 31, lease.

can we pause it here. it appears the two if— can we pause it here. it appears the two if you _ can we pause it here. it appears the two if you are now walking away from the suv? _ two if you are now walking away from the suv? -- — two if you are now walking away from the suv? —— of you. two if you are now walking away from the suv? -- of you.— two if you are now walking away from the suv? -- of you.- it- the suv? -- of you. correct. it appears _ the suv? -- of you. correct. it

appears that— the suv? -- of you. correct. it appears that you _ the suv? -- of you. correct. it appears that you are _ the suv? -- of you. correct. it appears that you are talking i the suv? -- of you. correct. it. appears that you are talking with the suv? -- of you. correct. it- appears that you are talking with at least some occupants of the vehicle. correct _ least some occupants of the vehicle. correct did — least some occupants of the vehicle. correct. , , :, :, :, least some occupants of the vehicle. correct. , :, :, :, correct. did you have a conversation with mr floyd _ correct. did you have a conversation with mr floyd or _ correct. did you have a conversation with mr floyd orjust _ correct. did you have a conversation with mr floyd orjust the _ correct. did you have a conversation with mr floyd orjust the front - correct. did you have a conversation with mr floyd orjust the front seat i with mr floyd orjust the front seat passenger? just with mr floyd or 'ust the front seat -aassener?, . with mr floyd or 'ust the front seat -aassener?, , :, with mr floyd or 'ust the front seat passenger?— passenger? just the front seat passenger- — passenger? just the front seat passenger. what _ passenger? just the front seat passenger. what did _ passenger? just the front seat passenger. what did you - passenger? just the front seat passenger. what did you see i passenger? just the front seat | passenger. what did you see of passenger? just the front seat - passenger. what did you see of mr flo d? passenger. what did you see of mr floyd? earlier— passenger. what did you see of mr floyd? earlier he _ passenger. what did you see of mr floyd? earlier he was _ passenger. what did you see of mr floyd? earlier he was shaking - passenger. what did you see of mr floyd? earlier he was shaking his i floyd? earlier he was shaking his head and putting _ floyd? earlier he was shaking his head and putting his _ floyd? earlier he was shaking his head and putting his hands - floyd? earlier he was shaking his head and putting his hands in - floyd? earlier he was shaking his head and putting his hands in the air, light, why is this happening to me? sort of thing. —— like. he air, light, why is this happening to me? sort of thing. -- like. he was awake? correct. _ me? sort of thing. -- like. he was awake? correct. what _ me? sort of thing. -- like. he was awake? correct. what was - me? sort of thing. -- like. he was awake? correct. what was the - me? sort of thing. -- like. he was awake? correct. what was the end result of that _ awake? correct. what was the end result of that conversation? - awake? correct. what was the end | result of that conversation? george flo d did result of that conversation? george floyd did not _ result of that conversation? george floyd did not choose _ result of that conversation? george floyd did not choose to _ result of that conversation? george floyd did not choose to come - result of that conversation? george floyd did not choose to come into i floyd did not choose to come into the store. , , the store. neither did the passenger in the front? — the store. neither did the passenger in the front? correct. _ the store. neither did the passenger in the front? correct. let's - the store. neither did the passenger in the front? correct. let's watch i in the front? correct. let's watch exhibit 31 now, _ in the front? correct. let's watch exhibit 31 now, please. _

the end of the video shows you and the other— the end of the video shows you and the other individual entering back into the _ the other individual entering back into the store?— the other individual entering back into the store? yes. when you got back into the _ into the store? ue:s when you got back into the store, what did you do about— back into the store, what did you do about the _ back into the store, what did you do about the two trips out to the vehicle? _ about the two trips out to the vehicle? ~ :, :, :, :, :, vehicle? we told our manager that he still refused to _ vehicle? we told our manager that he still refused to come _ vehicle? we told our manager that he still refused to come into _ vehicle? we told our manager that he still refused to come into the - still refused to come into the store. ~ :. still refused to come into the store. ~ :, :, :, . store. what did the manager decide to do about — store. what did the manager decide to do about that? _ store. what did the manager decide to do about that? he _ store. what did the manager decide to do about that? he instructed - store. what did the manager decide to do about that? he instructed one of my co-workers — to do about that? he instructed one of my co-workers to _ to do about that? he instructed one of my co-workers to call _ to do about that? he instructed one of my co-workers to call the - to do about that? he instructed one of my co-workers to call the police. j of my co—workers to call the police. did you know if that happened? correct — did you know if that happened? correct. , : correct. somebody called the police? correct. somebody called the police? correct- who — correct. somebody called the police? correct. who called _ correct. somebody called the police? correct. who called the _ correct. somebody called the police? correct. who called the police? - correct. who called the police? another co-worker. _

correct. who called the police? another co-worker. did - correct. who called the police? another co-worker. did you - correct. who called the police? | another co-worker. did you ask correct. who called the police? - another co-worker. did you ask the co-worker to _ another co-worker. did you ask the co-worker to make _ another co-worker. did you ask the co-worker to make the _ another co-worker. did you ask the co-worker to make the call? - another co-worker. did you ask the co-worker to make the call? no. i another co-worker. did you ask the i co-worker to make the call? no. were ou co—worker to make the call? were you present co—worker to make the call? tun. were you present when he made the call? correct _ we re were you next to him? correct. and at some point. _ were you next to him? correct. and at some point, did _ were you next to him? correct. and at some point, did the _ were you next to him? correct. and at some point, did the police - at some point, did the police respond _ at some point, did the police respond to the store? and respond to the store? correct. and when they responded, _ respond to the store? correct. and when they responded, did - respond to the store? correct. and when they responded, did you - respond to the store? correct. and when they responded, did you see | respond to the store? correct. and i when they responded, did you see the officers _ when they responded, did you see the officers actually come into the store? — officers actually come into the store? i — officers actually come into the store? :, :, officers actually come into the store?_ did - officers actually come into the | store?_ did they store? i do not recall. did they deal with _ store? i do not recall. did they deal with you _ store? i do not recall. did they deal with you when _ store? i do not recall. did they deal with you when they - store? i do not recall. did they deal with you when they came | store? i do not recall. did they l deal with you when they came to store? i do not recall. did they - deal with you when they came to the store? _ deal with you when they came to the store? :, do deal with you when they came to the store?_ do you _ deal with you when they came to the store?_ do you know— deal with you when they came to the store? note. do you know who they dealt with? — store? note. do you know who they dealt with? they _ store? note. do you know who they dealt with? they went _ store? note. do you know who they dealt with? they went and - store? note. do you know who they dealt with? they went and talked i store? note. do you know who theyj dealt with? they went and talked to my manager- _ dealt with? they went and talked to my manager- and — dealt with? they went and talked to my manager. and you _ dealt with? they went and talked to my manager. and you were - dealt with? they went and talked to my manager. and you were not - dealt with? they went and talked to i my manager. and you were not involve any conversations _ my manager. and you were not involve any conversations with _ my manager. and you were not involve any conversations with the _ my manager. and you were not involve any conversations with the officers - any conversations with the officers at at that — any conversations with the officers at at that time? no. so what did you do? iwas at at that time? no. so what did you do? i was to — at at that time? no. so what did you do? i was to walking _ at at that time? no. so what did you do? i was to walking cashier. - at at that time? no. so what did you do? i was to walking cashier. so - at at that time? no. so what did you do? i was to walking cashier. so you| do? i was to walking cashier. so you went about — do? i was to walking cashier. so you went about your _ do? i was to walking cashier. so you went about your business? - do? i was to walking cashier. so you went about your business? correct. | went about your business? correct. and as you — went about your business? correct. and as you did _ went about your business? correct. and as you did that, _ went about your business? correct. and as you did that, as _ went about your business? correct. and as you did that, as you - and as you did that, as you continued _ and as you did that, as you continued working, did you notice a commotion— continued working, did you notice a commotion out in front of the store?