this is bbc news. the headlines: the world of football in turmoil over a proposal for a breakaway super league. the prime minister says he'll try and stop the proposals as former players condemn the move. it is pure greed, they're imposters, they're nothing to do, the owners of liverpool and chelsea and manchester city are nothing to do with football in this country. i city are nothing to do with football in this country.— in this country. i don't think it is aood in this country. i don't think it is good news _ in this country. i don't think it is good news for — in this country. i don't think it is good news for fans, _ in this country. i don't think it is good news for fans, for - in this country. i don't think it is good news for fans, for football| in this country. i don't think it is l good news for fans, for football in this country. its good news for fans, for football in this country-— this country. its all money orientated. _ this country. its all money orientated. they - this country. its all money orientated. they have - this country. its all money i orientated. they have taken this country. its all money - orientated. they have taken the this country. its all money _ orientated. they have taken the fans consideration _ orientated. they have taken the fans

consideration at _ orientated. they have taken the fans consideration at all, _ orientated. they have taken the fans consideration at all, it _ orientated. they have taken the fans consideration at all, it is _ orientated. they have taken the fans consideration at all, it is all - consideration at all, it is all about greed and business. high street lenders offer mortgages to borrowers with a deposit ofjust 5% under a new government guarantee scheme. confirmed that ingenuity has performed the first flight of a powered aircraft on another planet. flight on mars — the american space agency nasa successfully makes history by flying a small drone on the red planet. staff who've complained of racism in the church of england have been �*paid off — to buy their silence,�* a bbc investigation has found and after more than a year of covid travel restrictions, people can now travel between australia and new zealand without having to quarantine.

good afternoon and welcome to bbc news. there's been a chorus of condemnation across football and from the government at a proposal that six top english clubs join six clubs from europe to form a new super league, from which they cannot be relegated. borisjohnson said the proposed european super league was not "good news for fans" and he would work with the football authorities "to make sure this doesn't go ahead in the way that it's currently being proposed". and the president of uefa — europe's football governing body — said the plan were a �*spit in the face of all football lovers. under the plans, arsenal, chelsea, liverpool, manchester united, manchester city, and tottenham would be part of a new midweek competition, whilst continuing to compete in their national leagues. the idea has been widely criticised as being anti—competitive, and driven by money. here's our sports correspondent andy swiss.

they're six of england's biggest clubs in one of football's biggest shake—ups. forming a new super league with some of europe's other giants could bring them even greater riches, but at what cost to the game? the new competition features england's so—called big six — arsenal, tottenham, liverpool, chelsea, manchester city and manchester united, alongside leading clubs from spain and italy. what's proposed is a midweek competition with up to 20 clubs in total and eventually a women's league as well. why? well, the clubs are unhappy with the structure of the champions league, which liverpool won just two years ago. they all want more money and a guaranteed place at europe's top table. these clubs want greater certainty in respect of their ability to qualify for competitions, to play against each other, to generate revenues and profits, but also to take control in terms of how the game is sold from a commercial point of view. this will result in the concentration of power and money in the hands of fewer and fewer clubs.

well the american owners here at manchester united, the glazer family, insist the super league will open a new chapter for european football, bringing together the greatest clubs and players throughout the season, they add, will ensure world class competition, but elsewhere in the game these plans have been met with an anger the like of which football has rarely seen. many believe domestic competitions will be undermined, including the premier league, in which united were playing yesterday. indeed one of the club's greatest names is now their sternest critic. it's pure greed. they're imposters, they're imposters, they're nothing to do, the owners of this club, the owners of liverpool, the owners of chelsea, the owners of manchester city, they're nothing to do with

football in this country. there are 100 and odd years of history in football in this country from fans that have lived and loved these clubs and they need protecting. indeed the premier league say the proposals will destroy smaller clubs dreams of climbing to the top, as leicester famously did five years ago. competition is what football is about and it allows leicester to win the premier league. it is self—anointed top clubs, don't forget, not by competitive achievement. and it undermines all of the principles that we teach children who come into our beautiful game about how you work hard in order to get your local community club promoted to the next level. so what now? well the super league teams want to carry on playing in their domestic leagues, but uefa say their players could be banned, potentially even from the world cup, while the government have also condemned the prosals. condemned the proposals. we're going to look- at everything that we can do with the football authorities to - make sure that this doesn't go ahead in the way that it's - currently being proposed. i don't think it is good news for fans, i don't think it is. good news for football

in this country. - some believe this is all a negotiating tactic from the big clubs to get more champions league money from uefa. fabulous goal! but if it happens, for teams and supporters, football will never be the same. andy swiss, bbc news. well, as you heard, critics of the proposed move fear it could potentially destroy domestic leagues. our correspondent katie gornall has been speaking to fans about what they think. football is meant to bring people together. right now it is uniting fans in a different way, outrage. for many supporters, news of a new european super league is not welcome. the euphoria of playing the big teams, it's going to just become an everyday game, we are playing barcelona again. it's not the same. i haven't seen or spoken to anybody that thinks this is a good idea apart from the greedy money men. this idea you can't be relegated, i think, who do you think you are?

what gives you, out of all the football team is going on, the god given right to go into this league and determine who the top clubs are. it will ruin, passing down to grass roots football, l it will destroy the structure of english football. - they don't take fans' consideration at all, i it is all greed and business. condemnation from the fans groups affected have been universal. arsenal supporters trust said the move would be the death of arsenal as a sporting institution. chelsea supporters trust were one of the first to speak out saying the proposal demonstrates the greed within football, enough is enough. while tottenham supporters trust, whose club was the first in britain to win a european trophy, say they feel the current board has betrayed them. it is a story that stretches far and wide. in italy, asjuventus, inter milan and ac milan announce their involvement, national newspapers described it as a war on football. translation: when i see kids playing on a soccer field, -

i enjoy it as if it's the national team. these are soccer clubs want to make football a luxury item. soccer is not a luxury item, it's the most popular thing that exists and it has to be popular again. of course not everyone feels it's a bad idea. you are a wolves fan so what do you make of the proposal? i think it's great for us because so i'm fed up of watching teams like manchester city and chelsea winning the league every year. the moneybags clubs. i think to give the other clubs a chance, like wolves, aston villa, leicester, and some other clubs, west ham, i think it's great. in a global sport, many fans now follow star players and not the clubs they grew up next to. what supporters think may determine what happens next and shape football for its future fans. katie gornall, bbc news. i've been speaking to the former footballer and host of match of the day —

gary lineker about his reaction to plans for a super league. probably pretty much the same as most people's reaction i think. one of alarm. one of concern. and disgust in many ways at the way this has been done. i think the main issue is, i have looked at it largely now is it is the closed—shop aspect. there is a bit of a power play going on, well a massive power play going on, well a massive power play going on, i wonder if there will be some sort of compromise with the proposed super league and uefa, because i know the big clubs have been disgruntled and sometimes irritated by the way uefa have done certain things, particularly with the new concept for the champions league that was coming up. so i wonder if there will be a comp miz.

i hope so. because if it goes ahead planned with the new super league, it will have massive ramifications on the game in this country and wreck the pyramid system that has been so important to local football clubs, to communities and teams and it takes out the competition really. imagine no teams need to qualify for the new european super league, it is a closed shop. therefore there is no qualification really... nothing to play for in the champions league and our top clubs will already be there. will there be a separate champions league to the europa league. how would that fare without the big clubs? it is a time of great concern. i clubs? it is a time of great concern-— clubs? it is a time of great concern. . , ., ,., , ., , concern. i mean, the proposals, the clubs have — concern. i mean, the proposals, the clubs have said _ concern. i mean, the proposals, the clubs have said they _ concern. i mean, the proposals, the clubs have said they want _ concern. i mean, the proposals, the clubs have said they want to - concern. i mean, the proposals, the clubs have said they want to go - concern. i mean, the proposals, the clubs have said they want to go on l clubs have said they want to go on playing in the national leagues, but the governing bodies have said they won't allow that. if you were trying

to look at it another way, you might say the six clubs involved are not saying they want to remove themselves from the grass roots game. themselves from the grass roots came. ., y themselves from the grass roots came. ., , ., ., , game. no, they want to be in the premier league _ game. no, they want to be in the premier league as _ game. no, they want to be in the premier league as well, - game. no, they want to be in the premier league as well, they - game. no, they want to be in the | premier league as well, they want their cake and eat it! in many ways. of course not. but they're talking about a league, the european super leaguef about a league, the european super league f you look at the infrastructure, or the plans they have leaked, there are 20 teams in it, two leagues of ten, they will play home and away, that is 18 games for the clubs to play before then going into a knockout stage of quarter—finals, semi—finals and a final. that is a hell of a lot more games. even if you only last in the league stage of it, that is, well, at the moment the teams my six games in the group stages, this means 18 more games, and already a congested

football calendar. that needs to be thought out. but again i do see this as some kind of play between the big clubs and uefa, which they have done before, to try and get more of the money and more fixtures and more big games for them to make more money. you're a former player of course, how much power do players have in a scenario like this? could they, if they wanted to, lead a revolt against their employers? well, i su ose against their employers? well, i suopose they — against their employers? well, i suppose they could _ against their employers? well, i suppose they could do. - against their employers? well, i suppose they could do. i - against their employers? well, i suppose they could do. i think. against their employers? well, i i suppose they could do. i think the important thing is to try and perhaps stop this is for supporters and fans of all clubs, because they all feel strongly about this, as do we all. and whether they can all come together, boycott games, that is possibly a way. but obviously they can't go to games at the moment anyway. we have seen how football

has struggled without fans in the said yum. they will know that. if they disenchant all the fans at the same time that could shift things. as for players, it is difficult for them, they have contracts to play and they will probably have to do as they're told. the interesting thing will of course be some of the managers' reactions, particularly of the big six, people like pep guardiola, jurgen klopp, always comes across as a man of the people, obviously he is from germany, where so far they have stood back from this. how can you have a super league without a club like bayern munich? psg for that matter. whether they will come in at some other stage and... make their thoughts known i'm not sure. it is a difficult one for players. i suspect one or two will be concerned, because like all footballers, you start out as fans and lovers of the

game and this is a threat to what football is really all about. people are talkin: football is really all about. people are talking about _ football is really all about. people are talking about it _ football is really all about. people are talking about it like _ football is really all about. people are talking about it like as - football is really all about. people are talking about it like as if- football is really all about. people are talking about it like as if it - are talking about it like as if it is a betrayal and you said at the beginning you were disgusted by this move. it is provoking really strong feelings, to anybody who is not interested in football, not part of the football world, they would wonder why it has triggered such strong emotion?— strong emotion? because of the avaricious nature _ strong emotion? because of the avaricious nature of— strong emotion? because of the avaricious nature of it. - strong emotion? because of the avaricious nature of it. they - strong emotion? because of the avaricious nature of it. they say| avaricious nature of it. they say well will learn more money to pump into the grass roots. but i can we know what this is about and it upsets people and upsets supporters and i understand why supporters would feel betrayed. even, specially the supporters of the clubs

concerned. because you need competition and without the competition and without the competition to actually qualify for these tournaments, the competitions don't mean quite the same thing. 15 teams that are in it, there is only 12 at the moment, they say it will be 15, are guaranteed to be in the competition forever more. only five teams per season can qualify for it. so i don't know how they will make this work. i so i don't know how they will make this work. . ., ., ,~' so i don't know how they will make this work. . ., ., ., this work. i wanted to ask you a related question, _ this work. i wanted to ask you a related question, you're - this work. i wanted to ask you a related question, you're a - this work. i wanted to ask you a i related question, you're a former tottenham player, tottenham are involved and today they have fired their manager, what is your reaction to that? ~ their manager, what is your reaction tothat? ~ , , their manager, what is your reaction to that? ~ , , ., their manager, what is your reaction tothat? , , ., ., to that? well probably a good day to hide bad news _ to that? well probably a good day to hide bad news in _ to that? well probably a good day to hide bad news in many _ to that? well probably a good day to hide bad news in many ways. - to that? well probably a good day to hide bad news in many ways. the . hide bad news in many ways. the cynical side of me thinks perhaps they did it before the cup final, just in case they won the cup final and then they would be stuck wi

jose, it has been a struggle for him. he was a magnificent manager for many years. he was hugely charismatic, very successful in our game for different clubs for years and the game's moved on, it has evolved tactically, i'm not sure if he has evolved with it. he never looked like a good fit for tottenham. it is a shame when these things end, but i'm not overly surprised. things end, but i'm not overly surprised-— things end, but i'm not overly surrised. . , ~ surprised. that was gary lineker s-ueakin surprised. that was gary lineker speaking earlier. _ the headlines on bbc news: fury as some of the biggest clubs in the premier league including manchester united, chelsea and liverpool announce plans to join a new breakaway european super league with no relegation. meanwhile tottenham have sacked their managerjose mourinho. they are — 7th in the premier league and were knocked out of the europa league last month.

borisjohnson cancels his trade trip to india amid rising covid cases in the country. the prime minister has cancelled his upcoming trade visit to india after it was announced that delhi is imposing a strict six—day coronavirus lockdown. the trip was billed as boris johnson's first major overseas visit since taking office — aimed at boosting trade and investment ties. rajini vaidyanathan is in delhi. it was seen as a significant visit with both prime ministers wanting to flesh out a trade deal, but delhi is heading into a week long lockdown. coronavirus cases are spiralling out of control here. the health care infrastructure is buckling under

pressure. icu beds are running out. one theory behind this surge in cases is the detection of a new variant. they're still looking into it, but some experts believe it is more transmissible and more deadly. we know that the indian variant has been detected in the uk, where you are, but plane loads of travellers continue to fly from india to britain, all of this is adding pressure on the uk government to add india to its travel red list. just over half of the adult population of the united states have now received at least one dose of coronavirus vaccine — that's about 130 million people. the figure is a milestone for the country that has suffered the most deaths from the pandemic. more than three million doses are being administered every day. here, the uk looks likely to pass 10 million second dose jabs later today.

official figures showed the uk wasjust 70,000 short of that number yesterday. the total number of both first and second jabs currently stands at 42,780,069. a hospital trust has pleaded guilty to failing to provide safe care to a mother, and to her baby who died a week after his birth. harry richford died in november 2017 after a series of errors at his birth by the east kent hospitals nhs trust. an inquest in 2020 found his death was wholly avoidable and contributed to by neglect. i think it has been really difficult for both of us to decide whether to pursue things or not and i think at the end of the day you have got to do the right thing by us, but also by other people. if other people had done this and looked into what was going on and researched and had

asked these questions and someone had done that before harry was born, harry may by alive today. it is had done that before harry was born, harry may by alive today.— harry may by alive today. it is hard work to relive _ harry may by alive today. it is hard work to relive and _ harry may by alive today. it is hard work to relive and fight _ harry may by alive today. it is hard work to relive and fight for - harry may by alive today. it is hard work to relive and fight forjustice l work to relive and fight forjustice and accountability, all because of the mistakes a hospital made and should _ the mistakes a hospital made and should have owned up to in the fist instance _ should have owned up to in the fist instance. had that happened, we wouldn't — instance. had that happened, we wouldn't be three years down the line and _ wouldn't be three years down the line and the number of babies that survived _ line and the number of babies that survived could have been significantly higher. closing arguments will begin shortly in the trial of the former american police officer charged with murdering george floyd in in minneapolis last year. derek chauvin denies causing mr floyd's death, which sparked mass protests in the us and across the world. we can speak now to madiba k dennie, a racial and genderjustice attorney based in new york. thank you forjoining us here on bbc news. there is no getting a way from the significance of this case is

there? tell us about your reflections about how important it is. �* , reflections about how important it is. absolutely. thanks for having me on toda . is. absolutely. thanks for having me on today- i — is. absolutely. thanks for having me on today. i think— is. absolutely. thanks for having me on today. i think you _ is. absolutely. thanks for having me on today. i think you hit _ is. absolutely. thanks for having me on today. i think you hit the - is. absolutely. thanks for having me on today. i think you hit the nail - on today. i think you hit the nail on today. i think you hit the nail on the head when you said how significant the trial is. the chauvin trial has shined a spotlight on the harms of american policing and intensified demands for change. the whole world is having this conversation and saw derek chauvin press his knee into george floyd's neck for nine minutes and now we are wondering what is going to be done about it. many perceive the trial as about it. many perceive the trial as a referendum on the past year of protests, on police and the ability of the legal system to provide justus after police violence. aha, of the legal system to provide justus after police violence. a real test for several _ justus after police violence. a real test for several key _ justus after police violence. a real test for several key institutions i justus after police violence. a real test for several key institutions in | test for several key institutions in the united states, but it has been for many people an emotional trial,

watching it unfold as well. and i wondered how have you felt watching it? , ., wondered how have you felt watching it? y . ., , , , , it? oh, yeah, it has been terribly hard. as it? oh, yeah, it has been terribly hand as a _ it? oh, yeah, it has been terribly hard. as a black _ it? oh, yeah, it has been terribly hard. as a black woman - it? oh, yeah, it has been terribly hard. as a black woman and - it? oh, yeah, it has been terribly hard. as a black woman and a . hard. as a black woman and a attorney i'm personally and professionally invested in equal justice under law, regardless of the colour of one's skin and it is difficult seeing the brutality that george floyd was subjected to, but knowing this is the same brutality that countless black americans are subjected to. there are around a thousand people killed by police per yearin thousand people killed by police per year in the country and black people are three times more likely to be killed by police. it is particularly troubling as a black person, but i'm of the position that no one should be executed by the police. we will hear be executed by the police. we will henr closing _ be executed by the police. we will hear closing arguments _ be executed by the police. we will hear closing arguments in - be executed by the police. we will hear closing arguments in the - be executed by the police. we will hear closing arguments in the trial

of derek chauvin in half an hour's time. i wonder if i could ask you about what you think the consequences will be for the united states, depending on the verdict? each way either guilty or not guilty is going to be momentous isn't it? yes, definitely. ithink is going to be momentous isn't it? yes, definitely. i think that if there is a finding of not guilty, it will definitely damage public trust in the institutions that relationship have already been deteriorated over the past year and really longer than that as well. these institutions, by which i mean the police and court are meant to serve and protect us. but george floyd was neither served or protected by the police and if the courts return a not guilty verdict he will be failed there. if there is a verdict of guilty, i think this is

a verdict of guilty, i think this is a hollow victory, because george floyd is no longer with us. but some positive things can come out of it. it would affirm that a legal wrong was conducted, what happened to george floyd shouldn't have happened and it will hopefully inspire hope for people in that it doesn't have to be this way. we don't have to live in a world where police can get away with murder and treat people violently without impunity, like we can and should be push for change. both to mitigate the chance of vie violence in the first place and make sure there is consequences. i violence in the first place and make sure there is consequences. i should sa to sure there is consequences. i should say to viewers. _ sure there is consequences. i should say to viewers, these _ sure there is consequences. i should say to viewers, these are _ sure there is consequences. i should say to viewers, these are views - sure there is consequences. i should say to viewers, these are views you | say to viewers, these are views you have already shared in the united states, we are mindful there is still a trial going on. moving forward, whatever the verdict delivered in this case, there is a

huge amount of work to heal the rift between the police and the black american community, what can be done? .�* american community, what can be done? ., �* . ., ~ , done? you're correct the work must be done regardless _ done? you're correct the work must be done regardless of _ done? you're correct the work must be done regardless of the _ done? you're correct the work must be done regardless of the outcome, there needs to be structural change, because even if derek chauvin is convicted, that may provide some solace to mr floyd's family but not to others. since the problem we are seeing here is both police committing harm and police getting away with that harm, the things that we need to heal this relationship are reducing community interactions with the police, so there is not that chance to create harm in the fist place and then if there is harm, there needs to be strengthened legal consequences.—

legal consequences. thank you so much. yesterday, china and the us committed to working together to tackle climate change. the announcement came as president biden's administration prepares to convene a global summit on thursday to mark earth day this year. radio four and the royal geographical society have been collaborating on a series of programmes looking at ways to curb global warming. it's called 39 ways to save the planet, and its presenter tom heap joins me now. tom, thank you forjoining us. 39 ways to save the planet? i don't want you to run through all 39. but what about today's episode, what was that about? it is what about today's episode, what was that about? , ., that about? it is one i feel passionate _ that about? it is one i feel passionate about, - that about? it is one i feel passionate about, it - that about? it is one i feel passionate about, it is - that about? it is one i feel - passionate about, it is something so few people know about it. it is

about the gases in your fridge, freezer or air conditioning that help keep it cool. now, if they escape, some of those, the older ones, can have a global warming potential more than 10,000 times as much as carbon dioxide. so a single molecule of one of those can warm the planet more, sorry 10,000 times more than a single molecule of carbon dioxide. you find these things in canisters, like the size of a small backpack, and if you let that gas go and these in some parts of the world are corroding and the gas escaping, that is like driving close to a million kilometres in a car. these are the weapons of mass destruction of climate change and there are teams gathering them, collecting them and destroying that.

that sort of terrifying your fridge could do such damage. is the programme about what individuals can do, or is it bigger policy decisions ijy do, or is it bigger policy decisions by governments. it is do, or is it bigger policy decisions by governments.— do, or is it bigger policy decisions by governments. it is not so much about the individual _ by governments. it is not so much about the individual levers. - by governments. it is not so much about the individual levers. there | about the individual levers. there are a few reasons for this. one is the truth is the big levers are not in our hands, it is really about a policy, business, innovation, but thatis policy, business, innovation, but that is not to say we don't have any influence. what we buy and what we vote and eat can have relevance to that. and the other thing and maybe it is a personal feeling, i think too many environment programmes drift to the preachy and the sort of holier than thou, this is about the celebration of the great things that are happening that we need to push harder on and less about you know putting your vest on, although that is a good idea in the winter. you have a nice _

is a good idea in the winter. you have a nice warm _ is a good idea in the winter. you have a nice warm waistcoat yourself. so 39 solutions, what is the top solution? ~ ., ., . solution? well one of them, which i find interesting, _ solution? well one of them, which i find interesting, they're _ solution? well one of them, which i find interesting, they're not - solution? well one of them, which i find interesting, they're not all- find interesting, they're not all technical, we had one about the importance of educating girls to full secondary level. well educated women, as well as having choices, they tend to have fewer children and that could reduce the global population by 5%. that is a big bite out of climate change. what i find interesting is the idea of what is called a carbon take back obligation. it sounds technical, but it is saying we should treat fossil fuels in the same way as water. the water that comes to or house we pay for and we pay for its disposal. people would be outraged if we didn't do that. but we don't do that with fossil fuels. we

didn't do that. but we don't do that with fossilfuels. we pay didn't do that. but we don't do that with fossil fuels. we pay for its arrival, but not for the damaging aftermath. the suggestion is that over the next ten to 30 years, up to 2050, we should pay a bit more for fossilfuels and the 2050, we should pay a bit more for fossil fuels and the fossil fuel industry should make safe and store the carbon dioxide. and that way, because we are going to carry on using fossilfuels, it because we are going to carry on using fossil fuels, it is a dream that we won't, but it will make the fossil fuels less attractive and also do thatjob of locking up the carbon dioxide. i think that idea, when you think about it, the idea of why don't we treat it like sewage, thatis why don't we treat it like sewage, that is a compelling idea. that could be well, at least half of our carbon dioxide just like that. carbon dioxide “ust like that. thank ou. now it's time for a look at the weather with matt. hello.

strong sunshine for most at the moment, but there are a few exceptions. cloud and rain has become more abundant in the far west of scotland and northern ireland. that will continue to push its way eastwards this evening. an isolated shower in the south—east. feeling warm in the sunshine, up to 18 degrees in some spots. patchy rain and drizzle becomes more widespread in northern ireland and scotland tonight. clearer skies in england, and a chance of a frost in rural areas. going into tuesday, more in the way of mist and fog. low cloud for northern ireland and scotland. low cloud in eastern england means a murky start, but that will retreat to the coast during the day. there could be an isolated shower, but the rain more likely in northern ireland and scotland and the far north of england. to the south, light winds. a much cooler day particularly

for eastern scotland. hello, this is bbc news. the headlines: fury as some of the biggest clubs in the premier league including manchester united, chelsea and liverpool announce plans to join a new breakaway super league with no relegation. it is pure greed, they're imposters, they're nothing to do, the owners of this club, liverpool and chelsea and manchester city are nothing to do with football in this country. i don't think it is good news for fans, for football in this country. it's all money orientated. it isa it is a load of codswallop. they have taken the fans consideration at all, it is all about greed and business.

high street lenders offer mortgages to borrowers with a deposit ofjust 5% — under a new government guarantee scheme. staff who've complained of racism in the church of england have been �*paid off — to buy their silence,�* a bbc investigation has found. and after more than a year of covid travel restrictions, people can now travel between australia and new zealand — without having to quarantine. sport now and a full round up from the bbc sport centre. let�*s get some more now, on developments, for those european super league plans launched by 12 leading sides. the head of european football�*s governing body — uefa — has condemned the actions — calling it a "disgraceful self—serving proposal from a select few clubs purely

fuelled by greed". aleksandr ceferin also confirmed that players from clubs involved would be banned from representing their national teams — and therefore unable to take part in european championships have a massive harm on the game in our country and it will wreck the pyramid system which has been so important to local clubs and teams, and it takes out the competition, really. imagine no teams need to qualify for the new european super league, it is a closed shop, and therefore there is no qualification, nothing really to play for in the champions league, and our top clubs will already be there. chelsea head coach thomas tuchel is the first of the big six managers to have spoken publicly since the news of the super league breakaway came out. he admits to not knowing about the league until yesterday and wouldn�*t be drawn on how he feels about chelsea being involved. ifi if i had ifihada if i had a clear opinion right now i would not mention it but it is too early, i think,

would not mention it but it is too early, ithink, tojudge would not mention it but it is too early, i think, tojudge it and there are way too many opinions out there. if i had one, i mean, let�*s be honest, i�*m an employee of this club and i trust this club and my job is very clear, so i may be not the right person to ask this. i can understand that you are curious and i can understand that there are many and very emotional reactions out there which i can also understand but i honestly don�*t know enough to judge it and i don�*t know the details. i was obviously not involved and my players were not involved and my players were not involved in this decision—making. so, we have may be the possibility, maybe it is a good thing, to step back and to not give our opinions and do not lose our head about his book is this is clearly a thing between the clubs —— not lose our head about this because this is clearly a thing between the clubs and we still have to fight for the goals we still have for the season.

some of the world�*s top�*s players have begun to give their thought on the idea. former arsenal playmaker mesut ozil. .. also strongly against the proposals is the psg midfielder ander herrera, formerly of manchester united. he�*s stated: "i love football and i cannot remain silent about this. i believe in an improved champions league, but not in the rich stealing what the people created, which is nothing other than the most beautiful sport on the planet." uefa has confirmed a new format for the champions league from 202a. the number of clubs in the group stage will increase from 32 to 36. the new format — which will see all 36 clubs brought together into one league, instead of the current system of four—team groups — was approved at an executive committee meeting of european football�*s governing

body in switzerland. some more big news from the premier league now — and one of the sides proposing the esl... jose mourinho has been sacked as manager of tottenham just six days before their league cup final. mourinho had been in charge at spurs since november 2019, replacing mauricio pochettino, and signed a deal until the end of the 2023 season. he leaves with the club seventh in the table, and five points off the champions league places. mourinho�*s coaching staff have also been sacked, with former player ryan mason taking training today. spurs play southampton on wednesday in the league — their opposition manager can understand the nature of the job. he hadn�*t have a very good year with tottenham, to be honest. they are below what they try to achieve, and they had a good start to the season, i think, and then for some reasons, injuries, a bit similarto i think, and then for some reasons, injuries, a bit similar to us or whatever, they dropped about, and then, yeah, this is normal, the normal route in football. you are under pressure as a manager, and

there is a moment when the club decides to sack you. spurs frontman harry kane has spoken out on twitter saying... one of the standout ties in the first round of the world snooker championship is under way in sheffield. john higgins — four time champion — against tian pengfei. tian is 11—3 up. it is the first to ten. that is the first round. that�*s all the sport for now. healthy, young volunteers here in the uk, who�*ve previously had coronavirus, will be deliberately exposed to the infection as part of a new study. a team at oxford university wants to see how the immune system responds the second time around and discover what this means for developing immunity.

dominic hughes reports. producing safe and effective vaccines in less than a year has been a significant scientific breakthrough, but there�*s still lots we don�*t know about covid—19. in particular, what happens when someone is reinfected with the virus for a second time. in what�*s known as a human challenge trial, using healthy young volunteers, researchers want to find out what dose of virus is needed to reinfect after someeone has already had covid—19, how the immune system responds to a second infection, and what this may mean for developing immunity that can protect against the disease. we control both the time and the dose of exposure. that information about what immune response protects them against infection can then be used to develop better vaccines, to test better vaccines and to test and develop new treatments. this simulation shows how those who take part in the study will be

quarantined for 17 days, until they pose no risk of passing on the infection. the chances of participants developing serious complications, or long—covid, are thought to be low, as they came through their first infection unscathed. human challenge trials have already played a key role in developing treatments for diseases such as malaria, tb and typhoid. it�*s hoped this one will improve the understanding of this latest virus, that has already cost us so much. dominic hughes, bbc news. the home secretary, priti patel, is expected to accuse facebook of undermining efforts to catch paedophiles, through changes to their messaging service. the company wants to introduc end—to—end encryption — meaning only the sender and recipient will be able to see the messages. facebook says strong safety measures will be included in any changes. the number of people visiting shops jumped by 88% following the re—opening of non essential shops in england and wales last week.

london saw the biggest weekly increase, up by 120%. according to the latest data, overall footfall is now only a quarter lower than pre—pandemic levels. russia�*s prison service says the country�*s leading opposition activist, alexei navalny, has been moved to a medical facility, following days of concern about his deteriorating health. officials said mr navalny had been admitted to a prison hospital after 20 days on hunger strike. in europe, the campaign to vaccinate against covid—19 has been slow to take off, dogged by delays in supply. so as the infection rate rises again across the continent, some people have begun looking abroad for a vaccine. over the past week, that�*s brought the first "vaccine tourists" to moscow, where around 50 people from germany travelled for theirfirst dose of the russian jab: sputnik v. our correspondent, sarah rainsford met up with the unusual

tourists — in moscow. in life before covid, red square was full of tourists. but eno isn�*tjust here for the perfect selfie spot, he�*s flown in from germany to get vaccinated against the coronavirus. it�*s a pandemia. yeah, so, i saw all the zombie movies, i know how it ends. eno tells me the vaccine roll—out at home is so slow, he was ready to go anywhere to get protected, whatever the politics. not that i like to support the system or anything here, but i get a vaccination here and i don�*t get it in germany. so, yeah, at the end, the vaccination situation for me is better here and that�*s really sad. russia is offering its sputnik vjab. and the first vaccine tourists were almost falling over themselves to get a dose of it. excited because now it's going to happen, what doesn't happen in germany. russia�*s big early claims for sputnik made many in the west weary it was more a political tool

than a pandemic beater. but eno is confident the jab is as safe as any other. how are you feeling? now it's good, but i didn't get up yet, let's check it out. _ the tourists can check out moscow, too. life here isn�*t locked down like it is in europe. but russia�*s infection rate is ticking up again, even though locals can get sputnik for free as they shop. in moscow, at least, it is really easy to get vaccinated. there�*s drop in clinics like this one all over the city. but, as you can see, there�*s no huge demand here. so, as europeans are starting to rush to this country in the quest for a covid vaccine, russiansjust aren�*t that enthusiastic. this man told me russians don�*t worry until danger actually strikes. only around a million muscovites have so far been vaccinated. that does mean there is enough

sputnik to go round, though, because production of this vaccine is still pretty limited. but it�*s not an option for all foreigners. russia�*s still closed to most countries because of covid restrictions. happily for hans, germany�*s an exception. he hopes vaccine tourism can help keep his travel firm afloat in this pandemic. i�*ve got many, many calls from people all over our country in germany who are excited about the offer to go to moscow with us. still with no sputnik side effects, eno is making the most of his unusual mini break to moscow. as russia makes the most of stepping in to help out where europe is struggling. sarah rainsford, bbc news, moscow. ethnic minority staff who�*ve made complaints of racism within the church of england, have been paid off to "buy their silence".

that�*s according to dr elizabeth henry, the church�*s former top advisor on race relations. she�*s told the bbc some of those who�*ve received compensation have had to sign non—disclosure agreements. dr henry made her comments as the church of england prepares to publish plans promising to address racism in its own ranks, as clive myrie reports. for seven years, dr elizabeth henry was the church�*s top adviser on race relations. last year, she was sitting directly behind the archbishop of canterbury when he admitted to the church�*s ruling body that it had failed. there is no doubt, when we look at our own church, that we are still deeply institutionally racist. let�*s just be clear about that. it was said to the college of bishops a couple of years ago, and it�*s true. a few months later, disillusioned, elizabeth quit, though she continues to support minority and ethnic clergy. making a complaint about racism in any organisation is daunting. elizabeth says one case in particular sticks in her mind. a really shocking incident

was a young black man who received a picture of a banana, but that banana had his head superimposed upon it and, underneath, it said "bananaman". that is a deeply offensive and deeply racist image. he took it to hr and he did file a grievance, and the decision was that it wasn't racist. but that wasn�*t the end of the story. elizabeth says the young man finally settled his case with the church, but with a gagging clause attached. that person left, and he received a very small compensation. however, he was forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement. i'm aware of others who have complained of racism, and they too have received compensation, and that's been

contingent on them signing a nondisclosure agreement. that doesn't deal with the issue of racism. that buys silence. the church says that whilst it can�*t comment on individual cases, "any behaviour of the sort described by dr henry is unacceptable. confidentiality agreements are only used in exceptional circumstances, where open processes may not have reached resolution." it says, "everyone has a right to be treated with dignity and respect, free from bullying and harassment." later this week, the church will publish a report by an anti—racism task force it set up following the death of george floyd, to ensure greater equality. the church does seem to recognise that there�*s a lot to be done, and i understand the task force will make some bold recommendations, but will the church be able to deliver? clive myrie, bbc news. you can watch the full

report on panorama — is the church racist? — on bbc one at 7.35 tonight. the headlines on bbc news... fury as some of the biggest clubs in the premier league including manchester united, chelsea and liverpool announce plans to join a new breakaway european super league with no relegation high street lenders offer mortgages to borrowers with a deposit ofjust 5% — under a new government guarantee scheme. nasa engineers are celebrating successfully flying a small helicopter on mars. the drone, called ingenuity, was airborne for less than a minute but that still represents the first powered, controlled flight by an aircraft on another planet. let�*s talk to professor sanjeev gupta,

one of the most senior scientists on mission perseverance. good afternoon. you must be delighted with the successful launch? it delighted with the successful launch? , ., .,, . delighted with the successful launch? �* delighted with the successful launch? . �* ., delighted with the successful launch? �* ., ., launch? it is fantastic. i'm not on the helicopter _ launch? it is fantastic. i'm not on the helicopter team, _ launch? it is fantastic. i'm not on the helicopter team, i'm - launch? it is fantastic. i'm not on the helicopter team, i'm on - launch? it is fantastic. i'm not on the helicopter team, i'm on the l the helicopter team, i�*m on the rover team but the rover has been imaging the helicopter and that has been amazing, to help these spacecraft operate on mars. how difficult has — spacecraft operate on mars. how difficult has this _ spacecraft operate on mars. how difficult has this been? first - spacecraft operate on mars. how difficult has this been? first of. difficult has this been? first of all, technically _ difficult has this been? first of all, technically very _ difficult has this been? first of all, technically very difficult i all, technically very difficult because the martian atmosphere is so thin, so it is difficult to generate lift, and the rotors have got to rotate extremely fast, and it all has to happen autonomously, so last night the commands were sent to both the helicopter and the rover to be able to image the helicopter taking flight and there has been years of work developing this and the last commands were uploaded last night and to see that happen is just extraordinary. the

and to see that happen is “ust extraordinaryi and to see that happen is “ust extraordinary. the drone is not catherinu extraordinary. the drone is not gathering information - extraordinary. the drone is not gathering information but - extraordinary. the drone is not gathering information but it. extraordinary. the drone is not gathering information but it is| extraordinary. the drone is not i gathering information but it is the feat of having landed on mars and got it to take off again? yes. feat of having landed on mars and got it to take off again?— got it to take off again? yes, it is a technology _ got it to take off again? yes, it is a technology demonstration, - got it to take off again? yes, it is a technology demonstration, not| got it to take off again? yes, it is - a technology demonstration, not part of the instrument suite of perseverance but it is collecting image data and it has a couple of cameras on board and the scientist like myself, we will use the image data depending on the quality but mostly it is for future development. it will be a game changer for exploration of planetary surfaces. give some idea of how long in the making these plans have been? people have been speculating _ making these plans have been? people have been speculating about _ making these plans have been? people have been speculating about this - have been speculating about this coming up with ideas on envelopes and drawing about for many years and i think the helicopter team have been working on this probably for the last six years or something. extraordinary technology. we the last six years or something. extraordinary technology. we have to be aware that — extraordinary technology. we have to be aware that it _ extraordinary technology. we have to be aware that it took _ extraordinary technology. we have to be aware that it took a _ extraordinary technology. we have to be aware that it took a while - extraordinary technology. we have to be aware that it took a while for - be aware that it took a while for the images to come back to earth so this is something that happened several hours before we knew it did happen? it

several hours before we knew it did ha en? ., , , several hours before we knew it did ha en? . ,, ., several hours before we knew it did ha en? ., ,, ., ., 3,5: ., happen? it happened at about 830 our time this morning, _ happen? it happened at about 830 our time this morning, and _ happen? it happened at about 830 our time this morning, and we _ happen? it happened at about 830 our time this morning, and we had - happen? it happened at about 830 our time this morning, and we had to - time this morning, and we had to wait until 1130 to get the data, to get the data down, and there will be better quality data coming down, so we have got initial imagery but there will be more satellite passes and full resolution video images and more images from the helicopter itself. what we have got coming up is a series of test flights, two or three more test flights where the helicopter will do, this flight was just up and down, basically, with a little swivel, but it will do a bit more adventurous flying, basically. apart from the feet of doing it in itself, why is this so important, what could it mean for the future of space exploration? for what could it mean for the future of space exploration?— space exploration? for us, i'm a cueoloist space exploration? for us, i'm a geologist working _ space exploration? for us, i'm a geologist working on _ space exploration? for us, i'm a geologist working on the - space exploration? for us, i'm a geologist working on the rover, | space exploration? for us, i'm a i geologist working on the rover, and we are very limited as to where we can go with a rover, because of the difficult terrain on mars, so what spacecraft like the helicopter will

enable us to do is to be more efficient and scout out areas we cannot reach or to look ahead, basically, and we try to work out which way we go, north or south, which way we go, north or south, which is the best route, and we can now use drones like this to help us make those decisions and search for life on mars. the make those decisions and search for life on mars— life on mars. the holy grail, life on mars -- _ life on mars. the holy grail, life on mars. .. thank— life on mars. the holy grail, life on mars... thank you _ life on mars. the holy grail, life on mars... thank you so - life on mars. the holy grail, life on mars... thank you so much. | people in australia and new zealand can now travel between the two countries — without needing to quarantine. the "travel bubble" has opened after more than a year of some of the toughest covid restrictions in the world. this report now from our correspondent shaima khalil, who was on the first flight between the two countries. together, at last, after more than a year of separation. a day of high emotions

and tearful reunions. eventually, this travel bubble may revive the tourism industry, but today was all about the families. my mum is 96 this year, so can�*t wait to see her, and she�*s so excited. emotional. really emotional. trying not to cry now. we're very fortunatel to be able to do this. i understand a lot of. people would struggle. i'm just glad, i'm just happy. it�*s been a long time coming. counting down the hours, the days. and it�*s just been so good to get that hug. prime ministerjacinda ardern said new zealand had closed its borders for the right reasons, but it came at a cost. we have seen today scenes that have reminded us of the personal sacrifices and price that has been paid by so many in new zealand, as we have seen grandparents meeting their grandchildren for the first time, loved ones and partners being reunited. those who have just missed

one another deeply. australia and new zealand were among the first countries in the world to impose heavy restrictions and shut their borders. now, they�*re among the first to open them to each other. it�*s a testament to how well they�*ve done in eliminating the virus at times, but also being able to control small outbreaks through snap lockdowns. siouxsie wiles has been one of the most prominent faces in the fight against covid—19 here. the microbiologist was made new zealander of the year for her leadership and initiative during the pandemic. knowing that we couldn�*t stop transmission using contact—tracing and testing in isolation at that time meant we had to take quite drastic action, and so, that�*s what we did. and the really distressing thing is that many countries, you know, are not learning from our example. theyjust cycle in and out of restrictions, and it means we have the evolution of new variants of the virus which, you know, could put our entire, you know, world at risk. new zealand�*s covid—19 vaccine roll—out has been slow,

and while that�*s worried some people — especially with looser travel restrictions — life here has felt normal for months. this monday pub quiz is part of the weekly routine — a stark contrast to countries like the uk. going hard and going early to contain the pandemic seems to have paid off, and what many countries are wishing for theirfuture is now part of new zealand�*s present. shaimaa khalil, bbc news, auckland. now it�*s time for a look at the weather with matt. hello. the ground across many parts of the uk continuing to dry out under strong april sunshine. clear blue skies like we saw earlier in warwickshire. there has been a little bit of rain around so far today. a rather bleaker looking scene in the western isles of grey skies, patchy rain or drizzle. that continues throughout the rest of today into the evening.

this is the area of cloud responsible. also pushing into northern ireland. at the same time, just want to draw your attention to this cloud now working out of germany and the netherlands towards us. that�*s going to push into the north sea and then develop into a larger area of low cloud for tonight and into tomorrow. but to end the day, blue skies for much of england and wales and eastern scotland. an isolated shower towards the very south—east. temperatures above where we normally expect this time of year. 17, 18c in england. maybe 16c to eastern scotland. into this evening and overnight, patchy rain and drizzle into scotland and northern ireland a little bit more widely. there is that low cloud blossoming over the north sea, pushing into eastern parts of england to give a rather murky start to tomorrow morning. another cool start tomorrow. temperatures below freezing in some rural parts of england and wales. less so for scotland and northern ireland, because it is here we start the day cloudy. patchy rain or drizzle. brightening up through northern scotland through the day. grey, misty, murky start through eastern counties of england. that will push back to the coast through the day. an isolated shower here, maybe over the welsh hills too.

but the main zone of cloud and patchy rain and drizzle will be across northern ireland, southern scotland, the very far north of england by the end of the day. north of that, north to north—westerly winds developing, scotland and northern ireland are much cooler day tomorrow. across some parts of eastern scotland, temperatures down around seven or eight celsius on what we have seen through today if not more. temperatures still into the mid teens for england and wales. that will change as we go through tuesday night into wednesday. a cold front pushing its way southwards. high pressure building in behind, keeping things largely dry, and thatjust means on our cold front, this zone of cloud pushing south through england and wales during wednesday, only one or two showers confined to the south—west later. a bit of a breeze here, but around 15 or 16c. elsewhere a much cooler day on wednesday. most notably down those eastern coasts. temperatures in single figures. it stays cool across some eastern areas throughout the rest of this week into the weekend. elsewhere drier weather dominates. light winds, strong sunshine overhead. feeling very pleasant by day. chilly by night once again and that chilly theme will become a bit more widespread into next week. temperatures dropping again. overnight frosts becoming more widespread too.

this is bbc news. the headlines: the world of football in turmoil over a proposal for a breakaway super league. the prime minister says he�*ll try and stop the proposals, as former players condemn the move. it�*s pure greed. they�*re imposters, they�*re imposters, they�*re nothing to do, the owners of this club, the owner of liverpool, the owners of chelsea, the owners of manchester city, they�*re nothing to do with football in this country. i don't think that it is good news for fans, is good news for football in this country. they're taking everything, a load of codswallop. - they ain�*t taking the fans into consideration, it�*s all about greed and business.

more than 10 million second doses of coronavirus vaccine have been administed in the uk. the jury in the trial of derek chauvin — the former police officer accused of murdering george floyd in the us — are about to hear the closing arguments in the next hour. high street lenders offer mortgages to borrowers with a deposit ofjust 5% under a new government guarantee scheme. confirmed that ingenuity has performed the first flight of a powered aircraft on another planet. flight on mars — the american space agency nasa successfully makes history by flying a small drone on the red planet. staff who�*ve complained of racism in the church of england have been "paid off to buy their silence," a bbc investigation has found.

good afternoon and welcome to bbc news. there�*s been a chorus of condemnation from across football after six top english clubs said they planned to form a new super league with other european sides. borisjohnson said the idea was not "good news for fans" and he would work with the football authorities to make sure it doesn�*t go ahead in the way that�*s been proposed. the president of uefa — europe�*s football governing body — said the plans were a "spit in the face of all football lovers". under the proposals, arsenal, chelsea, liverpool, manchester united, manchester city, and tottenham would be part of a new midweek competition, while continuing to compete in the premier league. here�*s our sports correspondent andy swiss. they�*re six of england�*s biggest clubs in one of football�*s

biggest shake—ups. forming a new super league with some of europe�*s other giants could bring them even greater riches, but at what cost to the game? the new competition features england�*s so—called big six — arsenal, tottenham, liverpool, chelsea, manchester city and manchester united, alongside leading clubs from spain and italy. what�*s proposed is a midweek competition with up to 20 clubs in total and eventually a women�*s league as well. why? well, the clubs are unhappy with the structure of the champions league, which liverpool won just two years ago. they all want more money and a guaranteed place at europe�*s top table. these clubs want greater certainty in respect of their ability to qualify for competitions, to play against each other, to generate revenues and profits, but also to take control in terms of how the game is sold from a commercial point of view. this will result in

the concentration of power and money in the hands of fewer and fewer clubs. well, the american owners here at manchester united, the glazer family, insist the super league will open a new chapter for european football, bringing together the greatest clubs and players throughout the season, they add, will ensure world class competition, but elsewhere in the game these plans have been met with an anger the like of which football has rarely seen. many believe domestic competitions will be undermined, including the premier league, in which united were playing yesterday. indeed one of the club�*s greatest names is now their sternest critic. it's pure greed. they're imposters, they're imposters, they're nothing to do, the owners of this club, the owners of liverpool, the owners of chelsea, the owners of manchester city, they're nothing to do with football in this country. there are 100 and odd years of history in football in this country from fans that have lived and loved these clubs and they need protecting.

indeed the premier league say the proposals will destroy smaller clubs dreams of climbing to the top, as leicester famously did five years ago. competition is what football is - about and it allows leicester to win the premier league. it is self—anointed top clubs, don't forget, not by - competitive achievement. and it undermines all- of the principles that we teach children who come - into our beautiful game about how you work hard in order to get your local community - club promoted to the next level. so what now? well the super league teams want to carry on playing in their domestic leagues, but uefa say their players could be banned, potentially even from the world cup, while the government have also condemned the proposals. we�*re going to look at everything that we can do with the football authorities to make sure that this doesn�*t go ahead in the way that it�*s currently being proposed. i don�*t think it is good news forfans, i don�*t think it is good news for football in this country. some believe this is all

a negotiating tactic from the big clubs to get more champions league money from uefa. fabulous goal! but if it happens, for teams and supporters, football will never be the same. andy swiss, bbc news. well, as you heard, critics of the proposed move fear it could potentially destroy domestic leagues. our correspondent katie gornall has been speaking to fans about what they think. football is meant to bring people together. right now it is uniting fans in a different way, outrage. for many supporters, news of a new european super league is not welcome. the euphoria of playing the big teams, it�*s going to just become an everyday game, we are playing barcelona again. it�*s not the same. i haven't seen or spoken to anybody that thinks this is a good idea apart from the greedy money men. ithis idea you can't be relegated, i i think, who do you think you are?

what gives you, out of all - the football team is going on, the god given right. to go into this league and determine who the top clubs are. it will ruin, passing down to grass roots football, it will destroy the structure of english football. they don�*t take fans�* consideration at all, it is all greed and business. condemnation from the fans groups affected have been universal. arsenal supporters trust said the move would be the death of arsenal as a sporting institution. chelsea supporters trust were one of the first to speak out saying the proposal demonstrates the greed within football, enough is enough. while tottenham supporters trust, whose club was the first in britain to win a european trophy, say they feel the current board has betrayed them. it is a story that stretches far and wide. in italy, asjuventus, inter milan and ac milan announce their involvement, national newspapers described it as a war on football. translation: when i see kids playing on a soccer field, i enjoy it as if it�*s

the national team. these are soccer clubs want to make football a luxury item. soccer is not a luxury item, it�*s the most popular thing that exists and it has to be popular again. of course not everyone feels it�*s a bad idea. you are a wolves fan so what do you make of the proposal? i think it's great for us because i'm fed up of watching teams like manchester city and chelsea winning the league every year. the moneybags clubs. i think to give the other clubs a chance, like wolves, aston villa, leicester, and some other clubs, west ham, i think it's great. in a global sport, many fans now follow star players and not the clubs they grew up next to. what supporters think may determine what happens next and shape football for its future fans. katie gornall, bbc news. i�*ve been speaking to the former footballer — and host of match of the day —

gary lineker about his reaction to plans for a super league. probably pretty much the same as most people�*s reaction i think. one of alarm. one of concern. and disgust in many ways at the way this has been done. i think the main issue is, i have looked at it largely now is that it is the closed—shop aspect. there is a bit of a power play going on, well a massive power play going on, i wonder if there will be some sort of compromise with the proposed super league and uefa, because i know the big clubs have been disgruntled and sometimes irritated by the way uefa have done certain things, particularly with the new concept for the champions league that was coming up. so i wonder if there will be a compromise. i hope so.

because if it goes ahead planned with the new super league, it will have massive ramifications on the game in this country and wreck the pyramid system that has been so important to local football clubs, to communities and teams and it takes out the competition really. imagine no teams need to qualify for the new european super league, it is a closed shop. now over to the courtroom in minneapolis, where we will hear the closing arguments in the trial of former police officer charged with murdered george floyd. this is the judge who is instructing thejury. let�*s listen in. b, judge who is instructing the “ury. let's listen mi judge who is instructing the “ury. let's listen in. a reasonable doubt is a doubt base _ let's listen in. a reasonable doubt is a doubt base on _ let's listen in. a reasonable doubt is a doubt base on reason - let's listen in. a reasonable doubt is a doubt base on reason and - is a doubt base on reason and common—sense and does not mean a fancifui— common—sense and does not mean a fanciful doubt or beyond all

possibility of doubt. a fact may be proven— possibility of doubt. a fact may be proven by— possibility of doubt. a fact may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence — proven by direct or circumstantial evidence or— proven by direct or circumstantial evidence or both. the law does not prefer— evidence or both. the law does not prefer one — evidence or both. the law does not prefer one form of evidence. the fact is_ prefer one form of evidence. the fact is proven by direct evidence when _ fact is proven by direct evidence when it— fact is proven by direct evidence when it is— fact is proven by direct evidence when it is prove p by witnesses who testify— when it is prove p by witnesses who testify as _ when it is prove p by witnesses who testify as to — when it is prove p by witnesses who testify as to what they saw, heard or experienced or by physical evidence _ or experienced or by physical evidence of the fact itself. a fact is proven— evidence of the fact itself. a fact is proven by circumstantial evidence when _ is proven by circumstantial evidence when its _ is proven by circumstantial evidence when its existence can be inferred from _ when its existence can be inferred from other— when its existence can be inferred from other facts proven in the case. if a from other facts proven in the case. if a person — from other facts proven in the case. if a person watches a deer crosses a snow— if a person watches a deer crosses a snow covered field, the person has direct— snow covered field, the person has direct experience of it they have seen _ direct experience of it they have seen it — direct experience of it they have seen it if— direct experience of it they have seen it if a _ direct experience of it they have seen it. if a person finds deer tracks, — seen it. if a person finds deer tracks, they're circumstantial evidence _ tracks, they're circumstantial evidence that deer walked in the field, _ evidence that deer walked in the field, because that conclusion can be inferred — field, because that conclusion can be inferred from the tracks in the snow _ be inferred from the tracks in the snow. attorneys are officers of the court _ snow. attorneys are officers of the court it _ snow. attorneys are officers of the court it is — snow. attorneys are officers of the court it is their duty to argue

their— court it is their duty to argue their client's cause. but the arguments or remarks are not evidence. — arguments or remarks are not evidence. if the attorneys or i have made _ evidence. if the attorneys or i have made or— evidence. if the attorneys or i have made or should make any statement as to what_ made or should make any statement as to what the _ made or should make any statement as to what the evidence is that differs from your— to what the evidence is that differs from your recollection of the evidence, you should disregard the statement — evidence, you should disregard the statement and rely solely on your own memory. if an attorney's argument — own memory. if an attorney's argument contains any statement of the law— argument contains any statement of the law that differs from the law i -ive the law that differs from the law i give you. — the law that differs from the law i give you, disregard the attorney's statement. the state has brought three _ statement. the state has brought three charges or counts against the defendant — three charges or counts against the defendant. each count charges a separate — defendant. each count charges a separate and distinct offence. you must _ separate and distinct offence. you must consider the evidence applicable to each count as though it were _ applicable to each count as though it were the only accusation before you for— it were the only accusation before you for consideration. you must state _ you for consideration. you must state your— you for consideration. you must state your findings as to each count in a separate verdict. uninfluenced by the _ in a separate verdict. uninfluenced by the fact— in a separate verdict. uninfluenced by the fact your verdict to any count— by the fact your verdict to any count is— by the fact your verdict to any count is in— by the fact your verdict to any count is in favour or or against the defendant — count is in favour or or against the defendant. the defendant may be found _ defendant. the defendant may be found guilty or not guilty. of any or all— found guilty or not guilty. of any or all of—

found guilty or not guilty. of any or all of of— found guilty or not guilty. of any or all of of the offences charged, depending on the evidence and the weight— depending on the evidence and the weight you give it. i'm about to instruct — weight you give it. i'm about to instruct you on the law that you're to apply— instruct you on the law that you're to apply to— instruct you on the law that you're to apply to the charges in the defence — to apply to the charges in the defence and before doing so, i am going _ defence and before doing so, i am going to _ defence and before doing so, i am going to define a few words and phrases— going to define a few words and phrases that appear in the charges and the _ phrases that appear in the charges and the defence that follow. the words _ and the defence that follow. the words and — and the defence that follow. the words and phrases being defined are in the _ words and phrases being defined are in the written copy of the instructions you're receiving. attempted means that the defendant did an _ attempted means that the defendant did an act _ attempted means that the defendant did an act that was a substantial step toward and more than preparation for causing the result and the _ preparation for causing the result and the defendant intended to cause that result. there are several forms of bodily— that result. there are several forms of bodily harm. bodily harm means physical— of bodily harm. bodily harm means physical pain or injury, illness or impairment— physical pain or injury, illness or impairment of physical condition. substantial bodily harm involves a

temporary but substantial disfigurement, that causes a loss or impairment— disfigurement, that causes a loss or impairment of the function of any bodily— impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or causes a fracture _ bodily member or organ or causes a fracture. great bodily harm is injure — fracture. great bodily harm is injure they causes great risk of death— injure they causes great risk of death or— injure they causes great risk of death or risk to any serious bodily harm _ death or risk to any serious bodily harm to — death or risk to any serious bodily harm to. cause death, causing death or caused _ harm to. cause death, causing death or caused the death, means that the defendant's act or acts were a substantial actor in causing the death— substantial actor in causing the death of— substantial actor in causing the death of george floyd. the defendant is criminally liable for the consequences of his actions that occur— consequences of his actions that occur in — consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary course of events, — occur in the ordinary course of events, including those brought about— events, including those brought about by— events, including those brought about by one or more intervening causes _ about by one or more intervening causes if— about by one or more intervening causes if they were the natural result— causes if they were the natural result of— causes if they were the natural result of defendant's acts. the fact

that other— result of defendant's acts. the fact that other causes distributed to the death— that other causes distributed to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal— death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. but he is not liable _ of criminal liability. but he is not liable if— of criminal liability. but he is not liable if a — of criminal liability. but he is not liable if a super seeding cause caused — liable if a super seeding cause caused the death. that is something that comes — caused the death. that is something that comes after the acts and is the sole cause — that comes after the acts and is the sole cause or result that would not otherwise — sole cause or result that would not otherwise have occasion xured. —— occurred — otherwise have occasion xured. —— occurred no— otherwise have occasion xured. —— occurred. no know or have knowledge or knew _ occurred. no know or have knowledge or knew requires only that the defendant believes that the specified facts exist. intentional or intentional means that the defendant either as a purpose to do the thing _ defendant either as a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed will cause the result. in addition, _ performed will cause the result. in addition, the defendant must have knowledge of those facts that are necessary to make his conduct criminal— necessary to make his conduct criminal and necessary to make his conduct criminaland are set necessary to make his conduct criminal and are set forth after the word _ criminal and are set forth after the word intentionally or intentional. with intent that, with intent to, or intended, — with intent that, with intent to, or intended, means that the defendant either— intended, means that the defendant either had _ intended, means that the defendant either had a purpose to do the thing

or cause _ either had a purpose to do the thing or cause the — either had a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes— or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed if successful will cause that result. it is successful will cause that result. it is not — successful will cause that result. it is not necessary that the defendant had the intent in advance, the necessary intent can develop during _ the necessary intent can develop during the commission of the act. police _ during the commission of the act. police officer means an employee of a law _ police officer means an employee of a law enforcement agency that is charged — a law enforcement agency that is charged with the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws and _ enforcement of the general criminal laws and who has the full power of arrest _ laws and who has the full power of arrest a _ laws and who has the full power of arrest. a law enforcement agency is arrest. a law enforcement agency is a unit— arrest. a law enforcement agency is a unit of— arrest. a law enforcement agency is a unit of state or local government that is— a unit of state or local government that is authorised to grant full powers— that is authorised to grant full powers of arrest and to charge a person _ powers of arrest and to charge a person with the duties of preventing and detecting crime and enforcing the criminal laws of state. the minneapolis police department is a law enforce ment agency. the definition— law enforce ment agency. the definition of any word will be defined —

definition of any word will be defined where it appears later in the instructions. the defendant is charged _ the instructions. the defendant is charged with murder in the second degree _ charged with murder in the second degree. underthe law charged with murder in the second degree. under the law a person causing — degree. under the law a person causing the death of another without intent _ causing the death of another without intent to— causing the death of another without intent to cause the death of any person— intent to cause the death of any person while committing an offence is combit _ person while committing an offence is comblt guilty of crime. the defendant is charged with committing the crime _ defendant is charged with committing the crime or aiding the commission of the _ the crime or aiding the commission of the crime. the elements of crime of the crime. the elements of crime of murder— of the crime. the elements of crime of murder in— of the crime. the elements of crime of murder in the second degree are, first element, the death of george george _ first element, the death of george george floyd must be proven. the second _ george floyd must be proven. the second element the defendant caused the death _ second element the defendant caused the death. third the defendant at the death. third the defendant at the time — the death. third the defendant at the time of causing the death of george — the time of causing the death of george floyd was committing our attempting to commit the offence of awe assault in the third degree. it is not _ awe assault in the third degree. it is not necessary to prove the defendant had an intent to cause the

death— defendant had an intent to cause the death of— defendant had an intent to cause the death of george floyd but attempted to commit the offence of assault. there _ to commit the offence of assault. there are — to commit the offence of assault. there are two elements of assault. first defendant assaulted george floyd _ that is ininflicting of bodily harm. second. _ that is ininflicting of bodily harm. second, the defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm. it is not necessary — substantial bodily harm. it is not necessary to prove the defendant intended — necessary to prove the defendant intended to inflict sub stun shall bodily— intended to inflict sub stun shall bodily harm. only that the defendant intended _ bodily harm. only that the defendant intended to commit the assault and george _ intended to commit the assault and george floyd sustained bodily harm as a result — george floyd sustained bodily harm as a result of the assault. fourth, the defendant's act took place on may 25th — the defendant's act took place on

may 25th. if you find that each of these _ may 25th. if you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond _ these elements has been proven beyond a — these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty. if you find any of the _ defendant is guilty. if you find any of the elements have not been proven. — of the elements have not been proven, the defendant is not guilty of the _ proven, the defendant is not guilty of the charge, unless you find the state _ of the charge, unless you find the state has — of the charge, unless you find the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt _ state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that _ state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this— doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime, committed doubt that the defendant is liable forthis crime, committed by doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime, committed by another person— for this crime, committed by another person or— for this crime, committed by another person or persons according to the instructions — person or persons according to the instructions that are listed on page 8. instructions that are listed on page 8~ the _ instructions that are listed on page 8. the defendant is charged in count two with— 8. the defendant is charged in count two with murder in the third degree in connection with the death of george — in connection with the death of george floyd. underthe in connection with the death of george floyd. under the law, a person— george floyd. under the law, a person causing the death of another by perpetrating an act dangerous to others _ by perpetrating an act dangerous to others and — by perpetrating an act dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, but without— others and evincing a depraved mind, but without the intent to cause a death _ but without the intent to cause a death is— but without the intent to cause a death is guilty of murder in the third _ death is guilty of murder in the third degree. the defendant is charged — third degree. the defendant is charged with this crime or aiding the commission of this crime. the elements— the commission of this crime. the elements of the crime of murder in the degree — elements of the crime of murder in the degree are first, the death of

george _ the degree are first, the death of george floyd must be proven. second element _ george floyd must be proven. second element that the defendant caused the death of george floyd. third element — the death of george floyd. third element the difficult v defendant caused _ element the difficult v defendant caused the defendant by an act that is dangerous to other persons. a person— is dangerous to other persons. a person commits an act when the act is likeiy— person commits an act when the act is likety to _ person commits an act when the act is likely to cause death. fourth, the defendant acted with a mental state consisting of disregard for human— state consisting of disregard for human life. the act may not have been _ human life. the act may not have been intended to cause death or specifically directed at the person whose _ specifically directed at the person whose death occurred, but must have been committed with a conscious indifference to the loss of life that the — indifference to the loss of life that the dangerous act could cause. fifth the _ that the dangerous act could cause. fifth the defendant's act took place on or— fifth the defendant's act took place on or about may 25th. if you find that each— on or about may 25th. if you find that each of the elements has been proven. _ that each of the elements has been proven, the defendant is guilty. if you find _ proven, the defendant is guilty. if you find that any of these elements

not been _ you find that any of these elements not been proven, the defendant is not been proven, the defendant is not guilty— not been proven, the defendant is not guilty of the charge unless you find the _ not guilty of the charge unless you find the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable _ reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for the crime committed by another— is liable for the crime committed by another person. the defendant is charged — another person. the defendant is charged in — another person. the defendant is charged in count three with man staught — charged in count three with man staught in — charged in count three with man slaught in the third degree. wherever by negligence whereby he creates _ wherever by negligence whereby he creates an _ wherever by negligence whereby he creates an unreasonable risk and takes _ creates an unreasonable risk and takes the — creates an unreasonable risk and takes the chance of causing death or bodily— takes the chance of causing death or bodily harm — takes the chance of causing death or bodily harm causes the death of another— bodily harm causes the death of another is — bodily harm causes the death of another is guilty of manslaughter in the second — another is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree. the defendant is charged _ the second degree. the defendant is charged with committing this crime or aiding _ charged with committing this crime or aiding the charged with committing this crime oraiding the crime, charged with committing this crime or aiding the crime, the elements of manslaughter are first the death of george _ manslaughter are first the death of george floyd must be proven. second, the defendant caused the death of george _ the defendant caused the death of george floyd by negligence and created —

george floyd by negligence and created an unreasonable risk and took— created an unreasonable risk and took a _ created an unreasonable risk and took a chance of causing death or bodily— took a chance of causing death or bodily harm. it is intentional conduct _ bodily harm. it is intentional conduct that the defendant may not have intended be harmful but that an ordinary— have intended be harmful but that an ordinary person would recognise as involving _ ordinary person would recognise as involving a — ordinary person would recognise as involving a strong probability of injury— involving a strong probability of injury to — involving a strong probability of injury to others. the third element the defendant's act took place on about— the defendant's act took place on about may 25th. if you find that each _ about may 25th. if you find that each of — about may 25th. if you find that each of the elements has been proven. — each of the elements has been proven, the defendant is guilty of the charge. if you find that any of these _ the charge. if you find that any of these elements has not been proven, these elements has not been proven, the defendant is not guilty of the charge — the defendant is not guilty of the charge. unless you find the state has proven — charge. unless you find the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the _ has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is liable for this crime committed by another person— this crime committed by another person or— this crime committed by another person or persons according to the following _ person or persons according to the following instruction on liability for crimes of another. the following instructions — for crimes of another. the following instructions apply fuel three of the charges _ instructions apply fuel three of the charges. the defendant is guilty of a crime _ charges. the defendant is guilty of a crime committed by another person or persons—

a crime committed by another person or persons only if the defendant has played _ or persons only if the defendant has played an— or persons only if the defendant has played an intentional role in aiding the commission of that crime and made _ the commission of that crime and made no — the commission of that crime and made no effort to prevent the crime. intentionai— made no effort to prevent the crime. intentional role includes aiding, advising. — intentional role includes aiding, advising, hiring, counselling with, or procuring another to commit the crime _ or procuring another to commit the crime the — or procuring another to commit the crime. the defendant's presence or actions _ crime. the defendant's presence or actions constitute intentional aiding — actions constitute intentional aiding only if first the defendant knew— aiding only if first the defendant knew another person was going to commit _ knew another person was going to commit a — knew another person was going to commit a crime and the defendant intend _ commit a crime and the defendant intend his — commit a crime and the defendant intend his attendance aided that crime _ intend his attendance aided that crime if— intend his attendance aided that crime. if he advised, hired, counselled or procured the other person— counselled or procured the other person to — counselled or procured the other person to commit it, the defendant is also _ person to commit it, the defendant is also guilty of any other crime the person— is also guilty of any other crime the person or persons commit. if that other— the person or persons commit. if that other crime was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant as a probably— foreseeable to the defendant as a probably consequence of trying to commit _ probably consequence of trying to commit the intended crime. the

defendant— commit the intended crime. the defendant is guilty of the crime under— defendant is guilty of the crime under the theory of aiding in the commission of a crime by another person— commission of a crime by another person or— commission of a crime by another person or persons only if the other person— person or persons only if the other person or— person or persons only if the other person or persons only if the other person or persons commit the crime. the defendant is not guilty for aiding, — the defendant is not guilty for aiding, advising, hiring counselling or otherwise procuring the commission of crimes unless that crime _ commission of crimes unless that crime is _ commission of crimes unless that crime is actually committed. the defendant— crime is actually committed. the defendant or the state rather, the state _ defendant or the state rather, the state has — defendant or the state rather, the state has the burden of proving beyond — state has the burden of proving beyond a — state has the burden of proving beyond a doubt that the defendant intentionally aided another person intentionally aided another person in committing the crime. no crime is committed _ in committing the crime. no crime is committed in — in committing the crime. no crime is committed in a police officer's action— committed in a police officer's action is— committed in a police officer's action isjustified by the use of reasonable force in affecting a lawful— reasonable force in affecting a lawful arrest or preventing an escape — lawful arrest or preventing an escape from custody. the kind and degree _ escape from custody. the kind and degree of— escape from custody. the kind and degree of force a police officer may use in— degree of force a police officer may use in executing his duty is limited by what _ use in executing his duty is limited by what a — use in executing his duty is limited by what a reasonable police officer would _ by what a reasonable police officer would believe to be necessary. and any use _ would believe to be necessary. and any use of— would believe to be necessary. and any use of force beyond that is not

reasonable — any use of force beyond that is not reasonable. to determine if the actions — reasonable. to determine if the actions of— reasonable. to determine if the actions of police officer were reasonable, you must look at those facts which — reasonable, you must look at those facts which a reasonable officer in the same — facts which a reasonable officer in the same situation would have known at the _ the same situation would have known at the moment the officer acted with force _ at the moment the officer acted with force ~_ at the moment the officer acted with force ~ you — at the moment the officer acted with force. . you must decide if the officer's— force. . you must decide if the officer's actions were reasonable in the light— officer's actions were reasonable in the light of— officer's actions were reasonable in the light of facts and circumstances and without regard to the officer's subjective — and without regard to the officer's subjective state of mind. he is not guilty— subjective state of mind. he is not guilty if— subjective state of mind. he is not guilty if he — subjective state of mind. he is not guilty if he used force as authorised by law. to prove guilt the state — authorised by law. to prove guilt the state must prove that the defendant's use of force was not authorised by law. you are the sole judges _ authorised by law. you are the sole judges of— authorised by law. you are the sole judges of whether a witness is to be believed _ judges of whether a witness is to be believed. there are no hard and fast rules— believed. there are no hard and fast rules to _ believed. there are no hard and fast rules to guide you. in determining the believability you may take into consideration the witness's interest or lack— consideration the witness's interest or lack of— consideration the witness's interest or lack of interest in the outcome of the _ or lack of interest in the outcome

of the case — studio: sorry we have a problem with the feed. we were listening to judge, peter cahill, who is presiding over the trial of derek chauvin. derek chauvin charged with two xoupts of murder and one of manslaughter of george floyd. that, the death of george floyd, occurred last may and we have been listening to the evidence from the trial. todayis to the evidence from the trial. today is the summing up. that will happen shortly by the prosecution and the defence and we were listening earlier to the judge instructing thejury as listening earlier to the judge instructing the jury as to... the points that they should bear in mind

when they are coming to their verdict. now, we will take you back to the courtroom once we have a workable feed. i�*m being told it is not quite there. let�*s bring you some other news. borisjohnson�*s cancelled visit to india, it comes after it was announced that delhi is imposing a six—day coronavirus lockdown. there are fears over a new india variant of the virus, with calls for the country to be put on the so—called red list. the trip was billed as borisjohnson�*s the so—called red list. the trip was billed as boris johnson�*s first major overseas trip since taking office. our correspondent gave us this update. it office. our correspondent gave us this update-— this update. it was seen as a significant — this update. it was seen as a significant visit, _ this update. it was seen as a significant visit, with - this update. it was seen as a significant visit, with both i this update. it was seen as a - significant visit, with both prime ministers hoping to flesh out a mini—trade agreement. but it became untenable as delhi heads into a week—long lockdown. coronavirus cases here and across india are

spiralling out of control. india�*s health care infrastructure is buckling under pressure and icu beds are running out and bodies are piling up. one theory behind the surge is the detection of a new variant. they�*re still looking into it, but some experts believe it is more transmissible and more deadly. we know the indian variant has been detected in the uk, but plane loads of travellers continue to fly from india to britain, all of this is adding pressure on the uk government to add india to its red list. haifa to add india to its red list. now back to minneapolis _ to add india to its red list. now back to minneapolis and the courtroom where the judge has just, is still i think instructing the jury, that feed is live again now as you can see and hear. let�*s listen in.

you can see and hear. let's listen in. , , ., in. determine the facts from the underlying _ in. determine the facts from the underlying evidence. _ in. determine the facts from the underlying evidence. alar- in. determine the facts from the underlying evidence. alar during these instructions i defined certain words and use are to use those definitions. if i have not defined a word or phrase, you should apply the common or ordinary meaning of the word or phrase. during the trial i have ruled on objections to certain testimony, you must not concern yourself with the reasons for the rulings. by admitting into evidence testimony and exhibits, i did not intend to indicate the weight to be given to such testimony and evidence. you are not to speculate as to answers to questions i did not require to be answered. you are to disregard all evidence and statements of attorneys that i have ordered stricken or told you to disregard. i would ask you to put your instructions under your chair as we listen to the closing arguments of counsel. is the state

ready? you may proceed. may i please the court, the council, members of the jury. his may i please the court, the council, members of thejury. his name may i please the court, the council, members of the jury. his name was george floyd junior. and he was born on october 1a 1973. in north carolina. his parents, george floyd

senior and lla cicely, the matriarch. —— larcenia jones. you have all heard about george floyd�*s mother, she was the mother of the house and of the neighbourhood, and you have heard about the special bond that she and george floyd shared during his life. you heard about their relationship, and how he would always take time, and special attention, to be with his mother, how he would still cuddle with her in the fatal position, we heard that. —— cuddle with her in the foetal

position, we had that. during his time growing up, george floyd was surrounded by people, people he knew, people who knew him, people he recognised, a familiar face to pick out in the crowd. people need that. george floyd was surrounded by people he cared about and who cared about him. throughout his life, throughout his childhood, in that house, through his adolescence, into his adulthood. on may 25, 2020, george floyd died. face down on a pavement, right on 38th st and

chicago in minneapolis. nine minutes and 29 seconds. nine minutes and 29 seconds, and during this time george floyd struggled, desperate to breathe. to make enough room in his chest to breathe. but the force was too much. he was trapped. he was trapped with the unyielding pavement underneath him, as unyielding as the men who held him down. pushing him. a knee to the neck and one to the back, twisting his fingers, holding his legs for nine minutes and 29 seconds. the defendant�*s weight on

him, the lungs in his chest not able to expand because there was not enough room to breathe. he tried and he pushed his bare shoulder against the pavement to lift himself, to give his chest, to give his lungs enough room in his chest to breathe. with the pavement tearing into his bare skin. as he desperately pushed with his knuckles, to make space, so he would have room to breathe, the pavement lacerating, lacerating his knuckles. the defendant stayed on top of him for nine minutes and 29 seconds, so desperate to breathe, he pushed with his face, with his face... to lift himself, to open his chest, to give his lungs room to

breathe. the pavement tearing into his skin, george floyd losing strength. not superhuman strength, there is no superhuman strength that day. there is no superhuman strength because there is no such thing as a superhero. those exist in comic books and 38 and chicago was a very real place. not superhumans. only humans. just a human, just a man, lying on the pavement being pressed upon, desperately crying out, a grown man, crying out for his mother. a human being. and in that time, and in that place, while he was surrounded in life by people he knew and face as he could pick out,

there was no one there he knew. he was surrounded by strangers. strangers, all of them, nine minutes and 29 seconds. surrounded by strangers, not a familiar face to say his final words. but he did say them to someone. he said them to someone who he did not know by name but he knew him from the uniform he wore and the badge he wore and he called him mr officer. that is what he called him. mr officer. mr officerwould he called him. mr officer. mr officer would help, we call the police when we need help, and he pleaded with mr officer. george floyd�*s final words on the 25th of may 2020 were, " please, i can�*t

breathe", and he said those words to mr officer, he said those words to the defendant. he asked for help with his very last breath but mr officer did not help and the defendant did not help, he stayed on top of him, continued to push him down, to grind his knees and twist his hand and twist his fingers into the handcuffs that bound him, looking at him, staring, staring down at times, with horrified bystanders who had gathered and watched this unfold... the model of the minneapolis police department is to protect with courage and to serve with compassion but george floyd was

not a threat to anyone. he wasn�*t trying to hurt anyone and he wasn�*t trying to hurt anyone and he wasn�*t trying to hurt anyone and he wasn�*t trying to do anything to anyone. facing george floyd that day did not require one ounce of courage and none was shown on that day. no courage was required. all that was required was a little compassion. and none was shown on that day. george floyd was a call about a $20 counterfeit bill. all that was needed was compassion. humans need that, people need that. but more fundamental than that and more practical, at that time, in that

place, what george floyd needed some oxygen. that is what he needed. he needed to breathe. as people need that. humans need that. to breathe. and he said that in the defendant heard him say that, over and over, heard him say that, over and over, he heard him but hejust didn�*t listen. he continued to push him down, to grind into him, to twist his hand, for nine minutes and 29 seconds. he begged george floyd he begged until he could speak no more, and the defendant continued this assault. when he was unable to speak, the defendant continued, and when he was unable to breathe, the defendant continued, beyond the point that he had a pulse, beyond the point that he had a pulse, the

defendant continued this assault. nine minutes and 29 seconds. when the ambulance arrived, the ambulance was here and the defendant continued. he stayed on top of him and he would not get up, he would not let up. he stayed on him grinding into him and continuing to twist his fingers and to hold him down. he had no pulse. he was not breathing. he was not responsive and the defendant had to know what was right beneath him. right beneath him. you saw the video, you saw the point when the ambulance arrived, and finally, after a paramedic got out and the defendant still did not get up, and the paramedic tapped him and finally the defendant got up, and finally the defendant got up, and they lifted mr floyd onto the

gurney and you saw the way, there was nothing there, his head... his head had to be held to prevent it from falling to the ground, he was completely limp. the defendant had to know that. he was there, he was on top of him. and he was on top of him. on top of him. sometimes you ask for the truth and sometimes you insist on the truth and the truth is the defendant was on top of him for nine minutes and 29 seconds and he had to know. he had to know. the medical examiner would find the cause of george floyd�*s death to be cardiopulmonary arrest complicating

law enforcement restraint and neck compression, but what you saw, the defendant and the other officers doing to george floyd, caused his death. the medical examiner ruled that the death was a homicide. death at the hands of another. what the defendant did to george floyd killed him. it was ruled a homicide and the defendant is charged with murder. the charge —— he is charged with murder and manslaughter and the defendant at the time was a police officer. it may be hard, it may be hard for any of you to imagine a police officer doing something like this. remember, injury selection,

we talked about bias and we talked about setting bias and pre—conceived motions behind, but imagine a police officer, doing this, that is the most difficult thing you might have to imagine, because that we trust the police. we believe the police are going to respond to our call for help and we believe they are going to listen to us. this is strong and it runs deep and it is difficult to set this aside. i want you to consider that even after, with the bystanders, after they saw what they saw, after they saw this shocking display of abuse of police power and a man murdered in front of them, genevieve hansen, she called the police. donald williams, he saw this, you heard him, he testified. he called the police. a

nine—year—old. what did she suggest? we need to call the police, on the police, that is our expectation, even after seeing this, even after witnessing this. our expectation is that the police are going to help. and with reason and with good reason, because policing is a most noble profession, it is. and to be very clear, this case, this case is called the state of minnesota versus derek chauvin. this is not called the state of minnesota versus the police. it is not. policing is a noble profession and it is a profession. you met several minneapolis police officers during this trial. you met them, they took

the stand and testified, and make no mistake, this is not a prosecution of the police, this is a prosecution of the police, this is a prosecution of the police, this is a prosecution of the defendant and there is nothing worse for good police than a bad police who does not follow the rules and who doesn�*t follow procedure and who doesn�*t follow training and who ignores the policies of the department and the motto of the department. to protect with courage and serve with compassion. the chief of police in minneapolis, he took the stand and testified and he told you what that badge that he wears over his heart means. it is a public service, it is a public trust, and they are there to help us. it is a professional organisation, there are standards and there are rules, and there is a code of conduct and there is a use of force policy and there is extensive training. the police are

first responders, they are who we call for help, and they help us, they have cpr training, and if more training then simply use of force, there is more to policing then putting handcuffs on people and taking them away. there is other kinds of training, procedural justice. crisis intervention training. medicaltraining. and there defensive tactics. and there is de—escalation. all of this training, hundreds and hundreds of hours of training, you met the people who staff the training centre and they told you. we don�*t train this, they told you that. the sanctity of life and the protection of the public, those are the cornerstones of the minneapolis police department�*s use of force

policy and the protection of the public, all of the public, all of the human beings that make up the public. the defendant, he didn�*t do that. because that day his badge just wasn�*t in the right place. the defendant was a police officer, he was. and again, we need to set aside the notion that it is impossible for a police officer to do something like this. the defendant is on trial not for being a police officer, he is not on trial for who he was, he is not on trial for who he was, he is on trialfor is not on trial for who he was, he is on trial for what he did. that is what he did. that is what he did, on that day. nine minutes and 29 seconds. that is what he did. he didn�*t follow training, the hundreds of hours of training that he had, he did not follow the department�*s use

of force rules. he did not perform cpr, he knew better, hejust didn�*t do better. hejust didn�*t cpr, he knew better, hejust didn�*t do better. he just didn�*t do cpr, he knew better, hejust didn�*t do better. hejust didn�*t do better. in the opening statement, remember, counsel said that the defendant followed the rules and followed his training, did you hear evidence of that? did you hear evidence of that from the stand? or did you hear something quite different? the chief of police testified it violated the use of force policy. he violated the de—escalation policy. he violated the duty to render emergency aid. you heard the trainer, he said, we don�*t train this, this is not who we are. no, that representation was simply wrong, that is just the story. what the defendant did was

not policing, what the defendant did was an assault. i�*m going to discuss the law with you in a bit here and explain, the court has already provided instructions on second—degree murder and you know within the laws of this state, if you commit at a certain level of assault, a fennelly level assault and a person dies, as a result of your assault, you are guilty of murder —— a felony level assault. it is as simple as that, and what the defendant did here was a straight up felony assault, this was not policing, it was unnecessary. it was gratuitous and it was disproportionate and he did it on purpose. no question. this was not an accident. he did not trip and fall and find himself upon george floyd�*s knee and neck. he did what he did on purpose. and it killed

george floyd. nine minutes and 29 seconds, that killed george floyd, and he betrayed the badge. and everything it stood for. it is not how to train and not how to follow the rules. this is not an anti—police prosecution. it is a pro—police prosecution. the defendant abandon his values and his training and killed a man and why? right out in the public. right out in broad daylight in front of several bystanders, as they looked in in shock and horror, why? this all started over a call of an alleged counterfeit $20 bill but

george floyd�*s life was taken for something worth far, far less. far less. you saw the photo, you saw the body language and you can learn a lot about someone by looking at their body language. the defendant facing down the crowd. they were pointing cameras at him. recording him. telling him what to do, challenging his authority. his ego and his pride, not the kind of pride that makes you do better and be better, but the kind of ego —based pride, that the defendant was not going to be told what to do, he wasn�*t going to let these bystanders telling what to do, he was going to do what he wanted. and how he wanted. foras do what he wanted. and how he wanted. for as long as he wanted. and there was nothing, nothing they could do about it because he had the authority. he had the power. he had the power of the badge and the other

officers. the bystanders were powerless, they were powerless to do anything. the defendant, he chose pride over policing. charles mcmillan, 61 years old, interesting man. you remember what he testified, he had the glasses, and if any of you in the front row when he walked by happened to notice his shoes, you probably sought your reflection. —— you probably saw. he dressed like cort was the most important day of his life. —— like his day in court was the most important day of his life. an interesting man. he called out to george floyd, he said, you can�*t win. and george floyd replied, i�*m not trying to win. i�*m not trying to win, i�*m scared. but the defendant was trying to win. he

wasn�*t going to be told what to do. he wasn�*t going to take a challenge to his authority. he was trying to win. and george floyd paid for it with his life. now, i also need to be clear, this is not the trial of george floyd. george floyd is not on trial. you have heard some things about him, that he struggled with drug addiction, that he was being investigated for allegedly passing a fake $20 bill, that there was never any evidence introduced that he knew it was fake in the first place, but he is not on trial, he did not get a trial when he was alive. and he is not on trial here. the defence claims he was noncompliant.

noncompliant. well, let�*s revisit what happened before the nine minutes and 29 seconds, before that. memorial day, may 25, 2020, and george floyd is sitting in a car in the driver�*s seat with two friends, and previously he had been in the store, cup foods, he was walking and talking and breathing, as alive as any person, any human, in this room. back to the car, he is with his friends, and a tap at the window. he looks to his left and is startled. this is what he sees. this is what he sees. within seconds of the

approach, the officer had tapped at the window and he pulls his gun and holds it inches from george floyd�*s face and starts shouting profanities, show me your... hands, show me your... hands. screaming it, this was within seconds. you can tell a lot by someone by looking at their body language. how does mr floyd look in this photo? terrified. the officer on the driver side and an officer on the passenger side, laine orders floyd to put his hands on the steering wheel and he does, thatis on the steering wheel and he does, that is compliance, not resistance. laine orders floyd to get out of the

car and he laine orders floyd to get out of the carand he does, laine orders floyd to get out of the car and he does, that is compliance and not resistance. they want him handcuffed. he is handcuffed. that is not resistance, that is compliance. and on the handcuffs, you recall the testimony, they were not properly double locked. so they continue to ratchet and they are on too tight. you listen to the video, throughout the video you can hear the sound of those handcuffs ratcheting tighter and tighter. mr floyd was trying to explain to the police that his wrists hurt. impervious to pain... please. his wrists hurt, no one listens to him, but it continues. they tell him to go over to the dragon walk, and he does, that is compliance, not resistance, and then they ask him to sit down, and he does. that is

compliance, not resistance, not trying to evade arrest, not trying to assault anybody, compliance. they ask in his name and he gives his name. he spells it. that is not resistance, that is compliance. they ask him to get up and he gets up, they ask him to go across the street and he goes across the street. where is the resistance? where is that? they take him over to the car, 0k, they take him over to the car, and george floyd is a big guy. you can see here, he is almost as big as officer turned on, he�*s a big guy. he�*s a big person, the back of the squad car is not. that is what they wanted him to get into, and to george floyd, that looked, you look at that, what you think that looked like? like a little cage. he tried

to explain himself to the officers, that he had anxiety, that he had claustrophobia. he explained this over and over. they wanted him to get into the back of this little car. and, you know, hejust wasn�*t able to bring himself to do it. he was unable to bring himself to do it. studio: we are going to leave the trial. we will be back there for the rest of the closing statements throughout the afternoon. you are watching bbc news. it is just coming up watching bbc news. it is just coming up to four o�*clock. that is the trial of derek chauvin in

minneapolis. they are just showing the video of the incident where the nine minutes and 29 seconds, when derek chauvin�*s knee was on george floyd�*s neck. we are not going to show that to you again because it has been shown in court before and it is very distressing. you are watching bbc news.

this is bbc news. the headlines: the prosecution begin their closing argument in the trial of derek chauvin, the former police officer accused of murdering george floyd in the us george floyd�*s final words on may 25, 2020 were, please, i can�*t breathe. and he said those words to mr officer. he said those words to the defendant. the world of football in turmoil over a proposal for a breakaway super league. the prime minister says he�*ll try and stop the proposals, as former players condemn the move.

it�*s pure greed. they�*re imposters, they�*re imposters, they�*re nothing to do, the owners of this club, the owner of liverpool, the owners of chelsea, the owners of manchester city, they�*re nothing to do with football in this country. i don't think that it is good news for fans, is good news for football in this country. they're taking everything, a load of codswallop. - they ain�*t taking the fans into consideration, it�*s all about greed and business. more than 10 million second doses of coronavirus vaccine have been administed in the uk. high street lenders offer mortgages to borrowers with a deposit ofjust 5% — under a new government guarantee scheme. staff who�*ve complained of racism in the church of england have been "paid off to buy their silence," a bbc investigation has found. india is to be added to the red list of countries from which most

travel to the uk is banned due to high levels of coronavirus. ingenuity has performed the firsr of a powered aircraft on another planet. flight on mars — the american space agency nasa successfully makes history by flying a small drone on the red planet. now back to the trial of the former american police officer charged with murdering george floyd last year. derek chauvin denies causing mr floyd�*s death, which sparked mass protests in the united states and across the world. this is the scene

live now in the courtroom. the judge there and we have been hearing prosecution arguments from the prosecution arguments from the prosecution attorney. he has been making the case that derek chauvin is indeed dplt. —— guilty. prosecution arguments and defence closing arguments today. we will be live there throughout the trial. there�*s been a chorus of condemnation from across football after six top english clubs said they planned to form a new super league with other european sides. borisjohnson said the idea was not "good news for fans" and he would work with the football authorities to make sure it doesn�*t go ahead in the way that�*s been proposed. the president of uefa — europe�*s football governing body — said the plans were a "spit in the face of all football lovers". under the proposals, arsenal, chelsea, liverpool,

manchester united, manchester city, and tottenham would be part of a new midweek competition, while continuing to compete in the premier league. here�*s our sports correspondent andy swiss. they�*re six of england�*s biggest clubs in one of football�*s biggest shake—ups. forming a new super league with some of europe�*s other giants could bring them even greater riches, but at what cost to the game? the new competition features england�*s so—called big six — arsenal, tottenham, liverpool, chelsea, manchester city and manchester united, alongside leading clubs from spain and italy. what�*s proposed is a midweek competition with up to 20 clubs in total and eventually a women�*s league as well. why? well, the clubs are unhappy with the structure of the champions league, which liverpool won just two years ago. they all want more money and a guaranteed place at europe�*s top table. these clubs want greater certainty in respect of their ability to qualify for competitions,

to play against each other, to generate revenues and profits, but also to take control in terms of how the game is sold from a commercial point of view. this will result in the concentration of power and money in the hands of fewer and fewer clubs. well, the american owners here at manchester united, the glazer family, insist the super league will open a new chapter for european football, bringing together the greatest clubs and players throughout the season, they add, will ensure world class competition, but elsewhere in the game these plans have been met with an anger the like of which football has rarely seen. many believe domestic competitions will be undermined, including the premier league, in which united were playing yesterday. indeed one of the club�*s greatest names is now their sternest critic. it's pure greed. they're imposters, they're imposters, they're nothing to do, the owners of this club, the owners

of liverpool, the owners of chelsea, the owners of manchester city, they're nothing to do with football in this country. there are 100 and odd years of history in football in this country from fans that have lived and loved these clubs and they need protecting. indeed the premier league say the proposals will destroy smaller clubs dreams of climbing to the top, as leicester famously did five years ago. competition is what football is - about and it allows leicester to win the premier league. it is self—anointed top clubs, don't forget, not by - competitive achievement. and it undermines all- of the principles that we teach children who come - into our beautiful game about how you work hard in order to get your local community - club promoted to the next level. so what now? well the super league teams want to carry on playing in their domestic leagues, but uefa say their players could be banned, potentially even from the world cup, while the government have also condemned the proposals. we�*re going to look at everything that we can do with the football authorities to

make sure that this doesn�*t go ahead in the way that it�*s currently being proposed. i don�*t think it is good news forfans, i don�*t think it is good news for football in this country. some believe this is all a negotiating tactic from the big clubs to get more champions league money from uefa. fabulous goal! but if it happens, for teams and supporters, football will never be the same. andy swiss, bbc news. the health secretary matt hancock has confirmed that india has been added to the red list of countries. that means only british, irish and third—country nationals with resident rights will be allowed to travel from india to england. he�*s been speaking in the house of commons in the past hour. mr speaker, after studying the data, and on a precautionary basis, we�*ve made the difficult but vital decision to add india to the red list. this means anyone who is not a uk or irish resident or a british

citizen cannot enter the uk if they have been in india in the previous ten days. uk and irish residents and british citizens who have been in india in the past ten days before their arrival, will need to complete hotel quarantine for ten days from the time of arrival. these rules will come into force at 4am on friday. mr speaker, india is a country i know well and love. between our two countries we have ties of friendship and family. i understand the impact of this decision, but i hope that the house will concur that we must act, because we must protect the progress that we have made in this country in tackling this awful disease. responding to the announcement was the shadow health secretary jonathan ashworth. who said the decision which came hours after prime minister borisjohnson called off a trade trip to new delhi was the right decision.

i've no doubt that downing street was reluctant to cancel the prime minister's — was reluctant to cancel the prime minister's trip to india, but as an mpfor— minister's trip to india, but as an mp for leicester i'm proud of our ties with — mp for leicester i'm proud of our ties with india, but i think it is the correct _ ties with india, but i think it is the correct thing to do. we must be vigilant— the correct thing to do. we must be vigilant and — the correct thing to do. we must be vigilant and be driven by the data. tackling _ vigilant and be driven by the data. tackling these variants does demand that vaccination continues to be rolled _ that vaccination continues to be rolled out— that vaccination continues to be rolled out and i pay tribute to all involved — rolled out and i pay tribute to all involved in — rolled out and i pay tribute to all involved in that. the prime minister cancelled his trip to india after it was announced that delhi was imposing a strict six—day lockdown. the trip was billed as borisjohnson�*s six—day lockdown. the trip was billed as boris johnson�*s fist six—day lockdown. the trip was billed as borisjohnson�*s fist major overseas visit since taking office,

aimed at boosting trade and investment ties. or correspondent has given us this update. it investment ties. or correspondent has given us this update.— has given us this update. it was seen as a _ has given us this update. it was seen as a significant _ has given us this update. it was seen as a significant visit - has given us this update. it was seen as a significant visit with l seen as a significant visit with both prime ministers wanting to flesh out a trade agreement. but it became untenable as delhi heads into a lockdown now. cases here are spiralling out of control. icu beds are running out and crematoriums say bodies are piling up. one theory is the surge is due to a new variant. some experts believe it is more transmissible and more deadly. we know that the indian variant has been detected in a number of cases in the uk, but plane loads of travellers continue to fly from india to britain. this is adding

pressure on the uk government to add india to its travel red list. our political correpsondent helen catt is in westminster. there has been pressure for days both for boris johnson there has been pressure for days both for borisjohnson to cancel the trip to india and to put india on the red list and both of those things have now happened? yes. the red list and both of those things have now happened? yes, this is in the last — things have now happened? yes, this is in the last hour _ things have now happened? yes, this is in the last hour that _ things have now happened? yes, this is in the last hour that india - things have now happened? yes, this is in the last hour that india will - is in the last hour that india will go on to the red list from 4am on friday, matt hancock said. that means anybody who not a british citizen or resident won�*t be allowed to come into the uk if they have been through or in india in the last ten days. those who are allowed in will have to quarantine in a hotel for ten days. so there had been pressure for the government to make the move, there has been concern not just about the numbers of cases in india, and the situation there, but also concerns about the indian variant of the virus. now, downing street sources were saying public health england is treating that as a

variant under investigation, not the more serious variant of concern. but they have now made that move to put india on the red list and confirmed that the prime minister�*s trip is not going ahead. i that the prime minister's trip is not going ahead.— that the prime minister's trip is not going ahead. i suppose some --eole not going ahead. i suppose some people may _ not going ahead. i suppose some people may wonder _ not going ahead. i suppose some people may wonder why - not going ahead. i suppose some people may wonder why india - not going ahead. i suppose some i people may wonder why india wasn't people may wonder why india wasn�*t put on the list earlier, but there is a distinction between variant of interest and variant of concern, the latter being the more serious? yes and it is, latter being the more serious? yes and it is. the _ latter being the more serious? jazz and it is, the government will say, it is up to public health england to make that assessment and decide how serious a variant is. so it is a variant under investigation. in terms of cancelling the trip, there had been pressure to do that. earlier downing street said there was no single factor that caused the cancellation of the trip. we knew that it was planned to be curtailed and was down from four days to just the bulk of it being done in one

day. today we know it is off. they will speak, the two prime ministers, remotely, and we don�*t quite know yet when, they have said later this month, earlierthe yet when, they have said later this month, earlier the prime minister�*s spokesman said we would find out in the due course, in the same way we are not sure if you would see the things you would normally see from this sort of trip, the signing of things like trade agreements. we are waiting to hearfrom downing street more detail about what will happen in place of that four—day visit. the two men are hoping to meet in person later this year though. hopefully they say by the, before the cop 26 summit. . ~ they say by the, before the cop 26 summit. ., ,, , ., we have the latest coronavirus cases. that information just coming

in. cases 2,963 new cases reported. deaths within 28 days of a positive test, four deaths and the death totals are often lower on mondays, because of t delays in reporting deaths over the weekend. that is the lowest number of deaths since september. vaccinations, 32.93 million people have received a first covid—19 vaccine. nearly 33 million. and more than 10 million have received two doses. 10 million have had two doses and nearly 33 million a first dose. let�*s return live to the trial of the former american police

officer charged with murdering george floyd in minneapolis last year. derek chauvin denies causing mr floyd�*s death, which sparked mass protests in the us and across the world. the prosecution have been outlining their case in their summary of their case and the prosecutor was saying that george floyd asked for help with his very last breath. he begged until he could speak no more, he told thejury in until he could speak no more, he told the jury in minneapolis. all that was required was a little compassion and none was shown on that day. that is what the prosecution have been saying. so let�*s go back to the trial in minneapolis. for murder in the second degree that the defendant at the time of causing

george floyd�*s death was committing or attempting to commit assault in the third degree. that is a felony level assault. assault, showed the defendant assaulted george floyd and he intentionally applied unlawful force to mr floyd without mr floyd�*s consent, resulting in bodily harm. the state did show that, the assault. and that the defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm and that this act took place on or about may 25. so as to the first element, that george floyd died. that was established. that was established by the emergency room physician, george floyd was pronounced dead at hospital on may

25th 2020. that element is met. again you can consider these elements any way you want to consider them. elements any way you want to considerthem. my suggestion elements any way you want to consider them. my suggestion is you consider them. my suggestion is you consider them. my suggestion is you consider them in the order as listed here, murder, one, and two and manslaughter. just because there is a lot here. there are 38 witnesses who testified. a lot of exhibits that were offered. and it is easy to talk about everything at the same time. it really is. but it will help focus your deliberations if you look at these different elements in order, to have sort of a logical way of focussing your deliberations. you can do it any way you want. second element that the defendant caused the death of george floyd. causation, what does that mean? it means that the defendant�*s act or

acts were a substantial causal factor in causing the death. he is liable for all the consequences of his actions that naturally occur. including those consequences brought about by intervening causes. the fact that other causes may have contributed to george floyd�*s death just does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. you have to find as the nine minutes and 29 seconds of compression on his knee, with his knees on his neck, and on his back was a substantial factor in george floyd�*s death. now, if there was a superseding cause, then the defendant wouldn�*t be criminally liable. but those are causes that come after the defendant�*s acts. and alters the natural sequence of event

and is the sole cause of death and we don�*t have that here. we know how george floyd died. this is the use of force. we talk about use of force, that has been define bed i the witnesses, looking at what happened from the point the knee went to the neck and back and the unlawful restraint, the assault, started. and how long it lasted, nine minutes and 29 seconds. that is what killed george floyd. that is why he died. believe your eyes, that unreasonable force, pinning him to the ground, that�*s what killed him. this was a homicide. you heard this from forensic pathologists, the experts, you have heard this and they have weighed in and one doctor told you that in floyd died, mr

vaper ruled it a homicide and told you the cause and manner of death, the restraint and subdual, what they did killed him. drtobin, you remember him? he told you specifically how it happened. he walked you through that, the asphyxia. and the other doctors who testified, dr smith and dr rich, they told you how it didn�*t happen. it wasn�*t a sudden cardiac event, it wasn�*t a heart attack or a drug overdose. drtobin wasn�*t a heart attack or a drug overdose. dr tobin explained it wasn�*t carbon monoxide. you know how george floyd died. and you heard this. but specifically dr tobin provided extensive detail and was

very clear that george floyd died as a result of a low level of oxygen, low level of oxygen caused a brain injury and a that caused his heart to stop. it is not a cardiac event. his heart disease didn�*t cause him to die. it was the low level of oxygen, it was the asphyxia that caused him to die. we know that that happened. we know that happened because they observed during the restraint, they observed a seizure, a tell—tale sign of oxygen deprivation, drtobin a tell—tale sign of oxygen deprivation, dr tobin told you. even dr fowler told you that. after mr floyd experienced a seizure, he passed out. his pulse stopped. his heart stopped. that arrest, that was the result of the police subdual and

the result of the police subdual and the restraint and neck compression. we know from dr tobin, george floyd did not die from a cardiac event as has been suggested. george floyd was no in perfect health. he had narrowed arteries and there was no question he was experiencing stress, even before the officers shoved him on to the side walk unnecessarily, disproportionately, but none of this caused george floyd�*s heart to fail. it did not. his heart failed because the defendant�*s use of force, the nine 29 that, deprived george floyd of oxygen he needed, that humans need, to live. and dr tobin knows, because he is a a lung doctor. he is

also a the only person who can measure pulmonary data. dr fowler couldn�*t do it. dr tobin, who is also a critical care physician, he spent years treating patients in intensive care experiencing respiratory failure. he was able to tell you what this looks like, what he was able to observe, what he could observe was oxygen deprivation, it wases a fission ya. because under the —— asphyxia. under the conditions that george floyd was restrained, that the defendant put him in, that cut off his oxygen, it

would have cut off oxygen of someone who was perfectly healthy. the forces used involved multiple factors. george floyd was handcuffed. he had an impaired arms and chest movement. he was shoved prone on a side walk. the knees pushing on his neck and back down ward, the force of the pavement being unyielding, it was like he was in a vice. that he was being you know squeezed in a vice. and he calculated between... derek chauvin, the defendant, pushing down on him, approximately 90 pounds of force and the position and the force combined was such it was as if george floyd�*s left lung had been surgically removed. that is how much of a reduction of care capacity there was here. to the point that mr floyd was

desperately trying to make space to breathe, pushing his shoulder, pushing his face against the pavement to lift up to give space to breathe. his lung capacityjust being in the prone position, although you heard studies from the defence saying the prone position isn�*t dangerous. dr tobin disagreed. he said it was 43% when you consider the additional pressure. his opinion corroborates the police training and what the police have known for 0 years. —— 30 years. that there is a danger in the prone position and the danger in the prone position and the danger is asphyxia and the worst thing that can happen with positionals al asphyxia is death.

the pressing up of the neck, that reduces the air capacity, it was as if mr floyd was breathing through a straw. shallow breaths. did not produce enough oxygen. not enough oxygen to get to the lungs. and that is what killed george floyd. here�*s what didn�*t, right? this wasn�*t a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. the doctors agreed, not a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. that is not how this looks. dr baker, no med medical evidence of a heart attack. we heard from dr rich, he treats people who have heart attacks. he found there was nothing on his, in his review,

nothing in george floyd�*s heart to suggest that death originated from the heart. nothing. you know, over the heart. nothing. you know, over the course of this case you heard a lot of things that didn�*t happen. and hypotheticals that don�*t apply. you know why george floyd died. you know how he died. you heard a lot about drugs, you heard about his struggle with addiction, there is some things that george floyd was obviously not a perfect man, who is? no one is. so you heard about drugs, you heard about some pills in the car. in the squad car. in his car. you heard questions about is he chewing gum, does he have a pill in his mouth? none of that matters, you know what his drug level was, you know what his drug level was, you know that from the toxicology report. if drugs are found in the

car, they�*re not in george floyd�*s system. so there is no point in talking about those. let�*s talk about what was in his system. the tobgs kalg record, you heart —— toxicology report you heard that george floyd�*s fentanyl level was george floyd�*s fenta nyl level was below george floyd�*s fentanyl level was below the ratio of people who die from a fentanyl overdose. george floyd�*s methamphetamine level was 94% lower than the group for driving population for driving under the influence. dr rich and dr smock treated patients under the influence of fentanyl and methamphetamine and say these drugs did not kill george floyd. we know he had a tolerance because he used drugs in the past and the experts all agree, the video

show that george floyd did not die the way someone who dies from a fentanyl the way someone who dies from a fenta nyl overdose the way someone who dies from a fentanyl overdose dies. his fenta nyl overdose dies. his breathing fentanyl overdose dies. his breathing didn�*t slow down. he didn�*t fall asleep. he didn�*t go into a coma. this looked nothing like a fatal overdose. dr tobin, the only doctor who calculated george floyd�*s respiratory rate and the best doctor to do so given his training and experience, he stated that the fentanyl in george floyd�*s system did not depress his system. he did not die of delirium. the doctor said george floyd did not exhibit any of the signs of excited delirium. one being

super human strength. none sense, there is no superhuman strength. there are no super—hewlett superhumans. you heard him. you saw him. he was not impervious to pain. that is nonsense. a suggestion of a tumour that is called an incidental al tumour, tumour that is called an incidental altumour, relatively tumour that is called an incidental al tumour, relatively rare. tumour that is called an incidental altumour, relatively rare. did tumour that is called an incidental al tumour, relatively rare. did that cause his death after the restraint and the nine minutes and 29 seconds. no that is just a story and dr rich specifically testified that he looked in george floyd�*s medical records and did not find reference

to headaches and you heard about carbon monoxide, the car killed him. dr tobin explained this car, which had a catalytic converter, that was outside, that was a hybrid and there is no evidence was even on, that that did not kill him. he explained carbon dioxide saturation, sorry oxygen saturation level and based on his calculation of oxygen saturation at 97%. it could be at most 2%, the same as people walking around talking, breathing, this wasn�*t carbon dioxide. that is just a story. you don�*t have to be doctor martin

tobin to recognise this, though. although it�*s probably nice to be doctor tobin but you don�*t have to be him to recognise this. you can see with your own eyes what happened, he said he couldn�*t breathe, the defendant was on top of him, on his back, on his neck come up him, on his back, on his neck come up with his knees pressing down, and of course, you saw how his body deflated into the ground. past the point of consciousness. there were multiple moments in time, ladies and gentlemen, that things could have gone different. and a george floyd would have lived. cpr. if he had left him in the side recovery position in the first place orjust placed him in the side recovery position. shortly after the restraint, he wouldn�*t have died.

their own witness testified that putting someone in the side recovery position are pretty fast, is a pretty easy thing to do, not complex, and the professor said you rotate him 90 degrees, quick, and if he had done that, relieve the pressure. could have done cpr, chest compression is. suppose too, had a policy he was supposed to follow. a duty to provide medical aid. you are notjust supposed to phone that income you are supposed to use your training and provide medical aid —— found that in, you are supposed usual training. the defendant knew how to do it, he had the train, and he knew better, but he did not do better. george floyd did not have to die that day and shouldn�*t have died that day, but the fact that the defendant decided not to get up and let up, george floyd died. these

actions were a substantial factor. in george floyd�*s death. these actions, make no mistake, these actions, make no mistake, these actions were not policing. these actions were not policing. these actions were not policing. these actions were an assault. as the judge instructed you, for second degree murder, and it�*s actually very simple, if you find that the defendant committed this third degree assault, while committing the assault he caused the death of george floyd, the defendant is guilty of murder, that is the way it works in minnesota, so there are two elements. the defendant assaulted george floyd. what does that mean?

0k. intentional. did it on purpose. he did the thing on purpose. bodily harm. again, to be very, very clear, the state does not have to prove that the defendant had an intent to kill george floyd. this was an intentional act that you see before you. he did this on purpose. that is clear. he did not trip and fall and find himself here. this was also unlawful force. officers are only authorised by law

to use reasonable force and this was not reasonable force as i will explain. george floyd clearly did not consent to having the defendant�*s knee on top of him for nine minutes and 29 seconds. when you hear someone gasping for breath and calling for their mother, begging you to get off, how could you think anything else? that he did not consent to this. the state does not consent to this. the state does not have to prove, what we don�*t have to prove about integra but we don�*t have to prove that the defendant caused george floyd�*s come and we don�*t need to show that he had because to show harm... the state does not need to show that the defendant intended to violate the law, don�*t have to show that. we don�*t have to show that the defendant intended to kill him but the only thing about the defendant�*s intent that we have to prove is that

he applied force to george floyd on purpose, that this wasn�*t an accident, and it�*s pretty simple. if you are doing something that hurts somebody and you know it, and you keep doing it, you are doing it on purpose. 0k. somebody is telling you they can�*t breathe and you keep doing it, you are doing it on purpose. what else is going to happen when you push somebody down on the pavement? everybody knows this. everybody knows what happens when you push somebody against the pavement. you learn this pretty early on. you learn this pretty early on. you

learn this pretty early on. assault in the third degree requires that the defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on george floyd. this means... organs, the lungs, the heart. temporary loss of consciousness qualifies as substantial bodily harm. certainly loss of consciousness would constitute substantial bodily harm. if you look at this point in the restraint can you see the absence of expression and the absence of muscle tension, he is unconscious. he has lost consciousness, that is substantial bodily harm. he did that. that is his knee. so when you consider that

the charge of second—degree murder, try to break it down into parts. the defendant caused george floyd�*s death, he did. the state proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. and at the time of causing the death, the defendant committed or is attempting an assault in the third degree. and that has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. with those being proved in the venue. second—degree felony murder, the defendant is guilty. going back and talking about murder in the third degree, you can see that there is some elements in common. there are differences, we have already discussed the first element of the death of george floyd and the substantial cause of factor

of the second element and the fifth element about the venue element, i will call it, made the 25th, 2020. —— may 25. for third—degree murder, the difference for third—degree murder is that the defendant had to cause george floyd�*s death by committing an act that was eminently dangerous and performed without regard for human life. again, the state is not required for this charge either to show that the defendant intended to kill george floyd. that he committed an act that was eminently dangerous and performed without regard for human life. it must approve them state must prove that the act was highly likely to cause death, that the defendant acted with a reckless disregard for human life. that this

was, he was consciously indifferent, consciously indifferent to loss of life, that his actions could cause. the defendant�*s act was eminently dangerous to others, if it was likely to cause death to mr floyd, and as if common sense in and of itself would not suffice, the dangers of prone restraint, of positional asphyxia has been known in the law enforcement community for about 30 years. this is known. if common sense was not enough. the defendant�*s own use of force witness admits that. and again when we talk about danger, what is the danger? potential danger of positional asphyxia, that is death. the medical experts who know a thing or two, doctor tobin, experts who know a thing or two, doctortobin, doctor experts who know a thing or two, doctor tobin, doctor reg, they are great, the defendant�*s actions created a high risk of death and the

defendant disregard of the loss of life that his actions could cause and did cause. he knew the risks of positional asphyxia because of this positional asphyxia because of this position and everybody in law enforcement knows that but he had other warnings, enforcement knows that but he had otherwarnings, notjust enforcement knows that but he had other warnings, notjust from his other warnings, not just from his training, other warnings, notjust from his training, he had other warnings from people. he is going to pass out. you think that is— he is going to pass out. you think that is cool? — he is going to pass out. you think that is cool?— that is cool? what is your badge number? you — that is cool? what is your badge number? you think— that is cool? what is your badge number? you think that - that is cool? what is your badge number? you think that is - that is cool? what is your badge number? you think that is cool. that is cool? what is your badge - number? you think that is cool right now? _ number? you think that is cool right now? you _ number? you think that is cool right now? you think that is cool right? you are _ now? you think that is cool right? you are above for that. you are getting — you are above for that. you are getting mad. you are stopping him breathing — getting mad. you are stopping him breathing right now. it was plain and apparent to everyone who was there what was

happening. he was going a responsive, he has passed out, he�*s not talking. —— unresponsive. what are you doing? we know the defendant chose not to listen to bystanders, not to these bystanders, but how about two fellow officers on the same? —— to fellow officers. roll him to the side, staying put where we got him, that is what the defendants sad. roll him on his side means put him into the recovery position —— that is what the defendant�*s said. he could have used his training, he knew better, but he didn�*t do better. he knew that kneeling on somebody�*s neck in addition to the positional asphyxia is dangerous, anyone can tell you that, a nine—year—old can tell you that, a nine—year—old can tell you that, did tell you that. conscious

indifference. indifference... do you want to know what indifference is? and sounds like? i need water or something. please, please _ i need water or something. please, please i_ i need water or something. please, please. i can't breathe, officer. takes _ please. i can't breathe, officer. takes a — please. i can't breathe, officer. takes a heck of a lot of oxygen... indifference _ takes a heck of a lot of oxygen... indifference.— indifference. leisurely picking rocks out of — indifference. leisurely picking rocks out of the _ indifference. leisurely picking rocks out of the tyre, - indifference. leisurely picking - rocks out of the tyre, commenting about the smell of the man�*s feet,

who you are pressing down and grinding up as his voice slows and fades as he tells you, " you grinding up as his voice slows and fades as he tells you, "you are going to kill me, i can�*t break my stomach hurts". my neck hurts, he said. everything hurts. it takes a lot of oxygen to complain about... indifference. does the defendant ever listen, ever consider medical attention? no one defended that decision, the failure to give cpr, not even doctor fowler. this isn�*t protection. this isn�*t courage. and it certainly, it certainly is not and was not compassionate. it was the opposite. of that.

back to the instructions. and the elements of third—degree murder. when you are deliberating, ask yourselves, did the defendant because the death of george floyd by an intentional act that was eminently dangerous to others? absolutely. the state proved that. did the defendant acted with a mental state consisting of reckless disregard for human life, a conscious indifference to the loss of life that the eminently dangerous act could cause? yes, he did. you will find, based on that, that the state has approved the defendant is guilty of third—degree murder as

charged. back to the charges, let�*s talk about manslaughter in the second degree, and again you can see that there are elements in common. the first, the third is in common with the other charges, so what is different about manslaughter in the second degree? that the defendant caused the death of george floyd by culpable negligence. culpable negligence, where created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm. and again, you do not need to prove, the state does not need to prove, the state does not need to prove, the state does not need to prove that he intended to. that he intended to kill george floyd. culpable negligence...

you can look for yourself and you can see exactly what was happening. the bystanders who were at the scene look for themselves and it was plain to them, they took video, you saw it, it was plain to you. strong probability of injury and with the defendant and his specialised knowledge about the dangers of positional asphyxia and the common sense that if you put your knee on somebody�*s neck it�*s a strong probability of injury, he also knew that. great bodily harm that causes a bodily injury that creates a high probability of death.

an organ, the heart, the lungs, the loss of consciousness... would an ordinary and prudent person know that this is dangerous? everybody who watched knew it was dangerous, a nine—year—old saw that it was dangerous, and the defendant knew exactly what he was doing because he was right on top. he was right on top of him. his negligence goes beyond his intentional assault of mr floyd. he negligence includes his failure to act. in your custody means in your care. in your custody means in your care. in your custody means in your care. in your custody means in your care. there is a duty to provide medical assistance, and that duty includes not only calling the ambulance for somebody else, it means you have to use your knowledge, your training, is a first responder. you are required to perform cpr. it is a requirement. he failed to do it. he had the

training, he knew how to do it, we have seen his training record, exhibit 119. you look at all the hours and in services, he knew what to do. hejust didn�*t hours and in services, he knew what to do. he just didn�*t do hours and in services, he knew what to do. hejust didn�*t do it. he knew better but he didn�*t do better. he wouldn�*t even let genevieve hansen, the off—duty firefighter, do it. he wasn�*t going to do it himself, let somebody else do it. but he didn�*t. he had the knowledge and the tools but he just ignored it. so when you consider this charge, that the defendant caused george floyd�*s death by culpable negligence, or he took an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death and great bodily harm, you will find that element has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty of second—degree manslaughter, guilty of all three charges. so, after all of this, you

have another question you have to address, after seeing all of this, finding the assault, finding the murder was committed, the manslaughter was committed, you have another thing to consider, and that is, was thisjust another thing to consider, and that is, was this just ok? was this fine? is this 0k? because the defendant was a police officer, was this unauthorised use of force? was it justified? was itjustified? it was not. let�*s look at the instruction of the kind and degree of force that a police officer may your feet lawfully use while executing his duties —— a police officer may lawfully use. you look at the facts,

that a reasonable release officer in the same situation would have known at the precise moment that the officer acted with force. looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances to see whether these actions, the defendant�*s actions were objectively reasonable. was this objectively reasonable? no. you just saw the instruction, the law does not provide an excuse. for police abuse. it does not. let�*s start with the most basic of premises. that�*s very important. that restraining george floyd in this manner, on the ground, prone, ankle, knee on the neck and back, body weight on top of him, start with the premise that that was in fact a use of force. the defence

called a witness who actually testified that that was not a use of force because that is not likely to produce pain. no. no. not true. likely to produce pain, actually produce pain. the problem with terms like superhuman, superhuman strength, you forget that those people don�*t exist. humans feel pain. human beings feel pain. human beings need to breed. any notion to the country. —— human beings need to breathe. don�*t accept any notion to the contrary. what would a reasonable police officer do? you don�*t look at this from george floyd�*s perspective, that is not what a reasonable police officer... you look at it, under the

law, you don�*t look at it from the defendant�*s perspective either, you look at it from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the evidence has shown over and over that the defendant is not that officer. because he did not act as a reasonable officer would. remember charles mcmillan? well, the defendant explained his actions, he explained the basis of his actions, to charles mcmillan. recall that? this is what he said. he isa he is a sizeable guide. it looks like he — he is a sizeable guide. it looks like he is — he is a sizeable guide. it looks like he is probably— he is a sizeable guide. it looks like he is probably on- he is a sizeable guide. it looks. like he is probably on something. he is a sizeable guide. it looks- like he is probably on something. —— sizeable _ like he is probably on something. —— sizeable guy~ — like he is probably on something. -- sizeable guy-— sizeable guy. that was his reason, he's a big guy. _ sizeable guy. that was his reason, he's a big guy. he _ sizeable guy. that was his reason, he's a big guy, he might— sizeable guy. that was his reason, he's a big guy, he might be - sizeable guy. that was his reason, he's a big guy, he might be on - he�*s a big guy, he might be on something, we have to control him, control is the restraint, so that is the force. his two justifications

were that george floyd was big and that he might be on something. well, you know the standards and you have heard the standards many times, you know the difference between a risk and a threat. officers are authorised to use force to respond to a threat, they are not authorised to a threat, they are not authorised to use force to respond to a risk. anybody poses a potential risk. big, small, in between. everybody is a risk. not everybody is a threat. being large, the act of being large is not a crime, it is not a risk. sorry, it�*s not a threat. just a risk. being on something... being on something, that�*s not a threat. it may be a risk but it�*s not a threat.

force is not authorised against someone who merely because they are on something, and when questioned, there force expert witness conceded that the combination of the two, being large and being on something, is not a justification for the use of force, itjust isn�*t. that is not what they get to do. so, the defendant�*s entire basis, his explanation to charles mcmillan, at the time, at the same, right afterwards, after he got up, off of mr floyd, and tossed him onto the green and walked away like it was nothing. that was his explanation. it's nothing. that was his explanation. it�*s not good enough. it�*s not procedure. it�*s not the use of force policy and its not following the rules. we�*ve talked a lot about

things that might have happened, could have happened, potentials, hypotheticals, talked about a lot of stuff that didn�*t happen. you need to focus on what did happen. what did happen. george floyd was not a threat and he never was. he wasn�*t resisting. hejust threat and he never was. he wasn�*t resisting. he just wasn�*t able to comply. they should have recognised that. they should have recognised that. they should have recognised that. they should have recognised that. they do it all the time. they had him handcuffed, they had plenty of resources, they had banned police officers and a fifth one in the distance, he wasn�*t going anywhere —— they had four police officers. he wasn�*t doing anything and he did not need to be put in a prone position to enable hand carving but the defendant was on top of him, grinding his knees into him, continuing to twist his arm —— enable handcuffing. it was simply

the infliction of pain, not a reasonable use of force. and it is not authorised by the minneapolis police department. kneeling on top of someone on their neck and back, effectively they were using a maximum restraint technique, effectively, you heard about that, they considered using it, they thought about using it, but decided not to. they didn�*t need to, because he wasn�*t doing anything that warranted it but if you are going to restrain someone like that, completely holding him down, the policy authorises the use of the hobble. they didn�*t do that. the policy about applying that hobble is that you need to put the person immediately in the side recovery position, why did they do that? —— why didn�*t they do that? the conduct did not warrant it and they knew it and they did not want to have to get

and they did not want to have to get a sergeant down there to do a force review. it was memorial day. you heard that comment, they talked about that. so theyjust held him in this dangerous position, against policy. a reasonable officer wouldn�*t do that, a reasonable officer follows the rules. a reasonable officer follows the training. a force that carries a risk of death is deadly force. and you recall, the npd defence tactics and control guy, deadly force is just not authorised in this situation, no force, when someone is passed out, on the ground, unresponsive, no... you really can�*t even claim that mr floyd was engaged in a passive resistance, at this point, and remember charles mcmillan, he kept saying, get up and get in the car, and george floyd said," i will. i can�*t. he doesn�*t

even have the opportunity. he isn�*t given the opportunity to do that. that is not resistance. it is at least an attempt to comply. force must be reasonable, it must be reasonable at the point it starts, at the point it ends, and all points in between, and officers are required to reassess the situation, we the situation, to take in the information and react to it. the defendant didn�*t do it. the defence has made the argument that the crowd justified the defendant�*s use of force, like the blame should fall on the bystanders, for displaying concern over a man�*s life. what? that this was a distraction and there was some concern, the defendant doesn�*t appear too concerned... it wasn�*t the fault of the bystanders. the 19 year police

veteran, a field training officer, with over 800 hours of