of mp5 has of mp5 ha5 found that committee of mps has found that borisjohnson lied about this, he knew he had broken rules, and that he then attempted to intimidate the mps who were investigating him. now, the committee would have recommended a 90 day suspension for boris johnson, but, he already resigned as an mp last week. so, what exactly is in this report? it has been called as damning as it can possibly be. let's get more on what is inside from this report.— from this report. looking up a re ort in from this report. looking up a report in detail, _ from this report. looking up a report in detail, it _ from this report. looking up a report in detail, it is - from this report. looking up a report in detail, it is clear - from this report. looking up a| report in detail, it is clear that the committee have attempted to go to great lengths to prove the central conclusion, which is that borisjohnson deliberately misled mps. and, here, on page nine, at the start of this lengthy report, which runs to more than 100 pages, they have summarised their findings, together with the recommended punishment that mrjohnson should face. they said that he deliberately misled the house of commons,

deliberately misled the committee itself, that he breached the confidence of the committee. that is racing to the statements he made when he resigned as an mp last week having seen the draft of the findings. he impugned the committee and undermined the democratic process and was complicit in a campaign ofabuse process and was complicit in a campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee itself. so, let's take one of those, the central finding itself but the committee set up to establish, that is where the borisjohnson deliberately misled mps. have a look at the language they use any evidence found, which they say supports that. they talk about his repeated and denials of the facts. also, the frequency with which he closed his mind is those facts. and, to which is obvious. they said that the only conclusion to be drawn is that he deliberately closed his mind. the fact that he sought to rewrite the meaning of the rules and guidance in place at the time to fit his own evidence... after the event

rationalisation, for example, the nature and event of the assurances he received. so, the committee looked at six events in total. that happened in downing street during the pandemic. that was where there was claims that the rules in place at the time had been broken. let's take one of those individually. as a case in point, the 20th of may 2020. it took place in the downing street garden where staff and officials were invited in what was described in an e—mail by an official as drinks. 0n the 20th of may, 2020, there is evidence, they say, that senior number ten officials were concerned about the nature of the gathering and were reluctant for it to go ahead. they say that it was not... raised with mrjohnson at the time. he was there at a short period of time. the social nature was indicated by the high number of people invited, with some attendees from outside number ten as well as

mrjohnson�*s wife, who the committee say consider cannot be considered as an absolutely necessary participant the installation in the garden of trestle tables, and alcohol available. they say there is evidence of a number of people in attendance increased during the time mrjohnson was at the gathering. and, taking the language of the rules in place at the time of this, backin rules in place at the time of this, back in may 2020, it would have been, we know the gathering, they say, for it to have been combined with the rules, it would have had to have been essential for work purposes. they do not consider, the committee say, that the gathering was held purely for the purposes of raising morale as being essential for work purposes. moreover, they set out in further detail than they do not believe mrjohnson would have advised the public that this was the case had he been asked at the time. so, one example they are via the committee believes that mrjohnson�*s account of the events and rules which were in place being but he was

saying something which he in the committee's eyes did not think is at the time. , ., ., ., committee's eyes did not think is at the time. , ., . . , ., ., the time. jonathan in the newsroom there, the time. jonathan in the newsroom there. looking _ the time. jonathan in the newsroom there, looking at _ the time. jonathan in the newsroom there, looking at some _ the time. jonathan in the newsroom there, looking at some other - the time. jonathan in the newsroom there, looking at some other detail| there, looking at some other detail in this very dense report. we have been gathering reactions from westminster and across the country, gauging the mood. earlier, ito dominic grieve. the gauging the mood. earlier, ito dominic grieve.— gauging the mood. earlier, ito dominic urieve. . ., ., , dominic grieve. the evidence against mr johnson dominic grieve. the evidence against mrjohnson overwhelming _ dominic grieve. the evidence against mrjohnson overwhelming base - dominic grieve. the evidence against mrjohnson overwhelming base of. dominic grieve. the evidence against| mrjohnson overwhelming base of the evidence _ mrjohnson overwhelming base of the evidence that the parties took place. — evidence that the parties took place, but what i think is particularly telling is that when he turn turn — particularly telling is that when he turn turn came to the house and made his various _ turn turn came to the house and made his various statements about giving assurances — his various statements about giving assurances that there had been no parties. _ assurances that there had been no parties. he — assurances that there had been no parties, he had been specifically told by— parties, he had been specifically told by his officials that he could not give — told by his officials that he could not give sufficient or assurances because — not give sufficient or assurances because it — not give sufficient or assurances because it could not be said that the ruies— because it could not be said that the rules have been properly followed. he cheerfully decided to id followed. he cheerfully decided to go ahead and do it. whatever the circumstances, which he says brought these _ circumstances, which he says brought these gatherings about, where he

says he _ these gatherings about, where he says he thought they were part of work _ says he thought they were part of work events, when he actually came to the _ work events, when he actually came to the commons, and explained what had been _ to the commons, and explained what had been going on, he knew that there _ had been going on, he knew that there was— had been going on, he knew that there was a problem and deliberately decided _ there was a problem and deliberately decided to— there was a problem and deliberately decided to conceal it. it has to be understood that this whole business is not _ understood that this whole business is not about what he did in downing street, _ is not about what he did in downing street, it _ is not about what he did in downing street, it is— is not about what he did in downing street, it is whether he lied to the house _ street, it is whether he lied to the house of— street, it is whether he lied to the house of commons.— house of commons. attis dominic grieve, former _ house of commons. attis dominic grieve, former attorney _ house of commons. attis dominic grieve, former attorney general l house of commons. attis dominic. grieve, former attorney general for england and wales giving his response to what this report has revealed. 0ne response to what this report has revealed. one thing that is consistent about this report is that they are strong. let's hear from angela rayner. i they are strong. let's hear from angela rayner-— they are strong. let's hear from angela rayner. i think the privilege committee report _ angela rayner. i think the privilege committee report is _ angela rayner. i think the privilege committee report is damning. - angela rayner. i think the privilege| committee report is damning. boris johnson _ committee report is damning. boris johnson is _ committee report is damning. boris johnson is not — committee report is damning. boris johnson is not only— committee report is damning. boris johnson is not only a _ committee report is damning. boris johnson is not only a lawbreaker- committee report is damning. boris| johnson is not only a lawbreaker but a liar _ johnson is not only a lawbreaker but a liar he _ johnson is not only a lawbreaker but a liar he is— johnson is not only a lawbreaker but a liar he is not— johnson is not only a lawbreaker but a liar. he is not fit— johnson is not only a lawbreaker but a liar. he is not fit for— johnson is not only a lawbreaker but a liar. he is not fit for public- a liar. he is not fit for public office — a liar. he is not fit for public office he _ a liar. he is not fit for public office. he has— a liar. he is not fit for public office. he has disgraced - a liar. he is not fit for public- office. he has disgraced himself and continues— office. he has disgraced himself and continues to — office. he has disgraced himself and continues to act _ office. he has disgraced himself and continues to act like _ office. he has disgraced himself and continues to act like a _ office. he has disgraced himself and continues to act like a pound - office. he has disgraced himself and continues to act like a pound shop . continues to act like a pound shop donald _ continues to act like a pound shop donald trump _ continues to act like a pound shop donald trump in _ continues to act like a pound shop donald trump in a _ continues to act like a pound shop donald trump in a way— continues to act like a pound shop donald trump in a way that - continues to act like a pound shop donald trump in a way that he - continues to act like a pound shop. donald trump in a way that he tries to discredit — donald trump in a way that he tries to discredit anybody— donald trump in a way that he tries to discredit anybody who _ donald trump in a way that he tries to discredit anybody who criticises i to discredit anybody who criticises

his actions. — to discredit anybody who criticises his actions, and _ to discredit anybody who criticises his actions, and actually, - to discredit anybody who criticises his actions, and actually, a - to discredit anybody who criticisesi his actions, and actually, a decent public— his actions, and actually, a decent public servant _ his actions, and actually, a decent public servant would _ his actions, and actually, a decent public servant would have - his actions, and actually, a decent public servant would have done i his actions, and actually, a decentl public servant would have done the honourable — public servant would have done the honourable thing _ public servant would have done the honourable thing and _ public servant would have done the honourable thing and had - public servant would have done the honourable thing and had a - public servant would have done the honourable thing and had a bit- public servant would have done the honourable thing and had a bit of. honourable thing and had a bit of humility, — honourable thing and had a bit of humility, and _ honourable thing and had a bit of humility, and would _ honourable thing and had a bit of humility, and would have - honourable thing and had a bit of. humility, and would have apologised to the _ humility, and would have apologised to the british — humility, and would have apologised to the british public _ humility, and would have apologised to the british public what _ humility, and would have apologised to the british public what they- humility, and would have apologised to the british public what they put i to the british public what they put them _ to the british public what they put them through _ to the british public what they put them through. he _ to the british public what they put them through. he says _ to the british public what they put them through. he says that - to the british public what they put them through. he says that he . to the british public what they puti them through. he says that he has not done _ them through. he says that he has not done anything _ them through. he says that he has not done anything wrong, - them through. he says that he has not done anything wrong, that - them through. he says that he has not done anything wrong, that is. them through. he says that he has not done anything wrong, that is a| not done anything wrong, that is a witch— not done anything wrong, that is a witch hunt, — not done anything wrong, that is a witch hunt, but _ not done anything wrong, that is a witch hunt, but they— not done anything wrong, that is a witch hunt, but they have - not done anything wrong, that is a witch hunt, but they have set - not done anything wrong, that is a witch hunt, but they have set outl not done anything wrong, that is a. witch hunt, but they have set out to -et witch hunt, but they have set out to get him _ witch hunt, but they have set out to get him from — witch hunt, but they have set out to get him from the _ witch hunt, but they have set out to get him from the beginning. - witch hunt, but they have set out to get him from the beginning. iirilt�*haitl witch hunt, but they have set out to get him from the beginning. what do ou make get him from the beginning. what do you make of — get him from the beginning. what do you make of that? _ get him from the beginning. what do you make of that? that _ get him from the beginning. what do you make of that? that response? it| you make of that? that response? it is a load of rubbish and he knows it. is a load of rubbish and he knows it that— is a load of rubbish and he knows it that is— is a load of rubbish and he knows it that is why— is a load of rubbish and he knows it. that is why he _ is a load of rubbish and he knows it. that is why he did _ is a load of rubbish and he knows it. that is why he did not- is a load of rubbish and he knows i it. that is why he did not challenge a seat. _ it. that is why he did not challenge a seat. that— it. that is why he did not challenge a seat. that is— it. that is why he did not challenge a seat, that is why— it. that is why he did not challenge a seat, that is why he _ it. that is why he did not challenge a seat, that is why he has - it. that is why he did not challengel a seat, that is why he has resigned. he knew— a seat, that is why he has resigned. he knew that— a seat, that is why he has resigned. he knew that he _ a seat, that is why he has resigned. he knew that he would _ a seat, that is why he has resigned. he knew that he would not - a seat, that is why he has resigned. he knew that he would not win - a seat, that is why he has resigned. he knew that he would not win a . he knew that he would not win a bv-etection. _ he knew that he would not win a bv-eiection. he _ he knew that he would not win a by—election, he knows _ he knew that he would not win a by—election, he knows that - he knew that he would not win a by—election, he knows that the i by—election, he knows that the public— by—election, he knows that the public can— by—election, he knows that the public can see _ by—election, he knows that the public can see through - by—election, he knows that the public can see through this - by—election, he knows that the| public can see through this act, this ctown — public can see through this act, this clown act _ public can see through this act, this clown act that _ public can see through this act, this clown act that he _ public can see through this act, this clown act that he puts - public can see through this act, this clown act that he puts on. i this clown act that he puts on. whereas, _ this clown act that he puts on. whereas, it _ this clown act that he puts on. whereas, it is _ this clown act that he puts on. whereas, it is pretty- this clown act that he puts on. whereas, it is pretty obvious i this clown act that he puts on. i whereas, it is pretty obvious that that report — whereas, it is pretty obvious that that report is _ whereas, it is pretty obvious that that report is very— whereas, it is pretty obvious that that report is very damning. - whereas, it is pretty obvious that that report is very damning. intol that report is very damning. into what _ that report is very damning. into what happened _ that report is very damning. into what happened. and _ that report is very damning. into what happened. and he - that report is very damning. into what happened. and he has- that report is very damning. into - what happened. and he has disgraced himsetf~ _ what happened. and he has disgraced himself he _ what happened. and he has disgraced himself. he should _ what happened. and he has disgraced himself. he should apologise - what happened. and he has disgraced himself. he should apologise to - what happened. and he has disgraced himself. he should apologise to the l himself. he should apologise to the british— himself. he should apologise to the british people _ himself. he should apologise to the british people. rishi _ himself. he should apologise to the british people. rishi sunak- himself. he should apologise to the british people. rishi sunak is- himself. he should apologise to the british people. rishi sunak is not. british people. rishi sunak is not have _ british people. rishi sunak is not have prop — british people. rishi sunak is not have prop him _ british people. rishi sunak is not have prop him up _ british people. rishi sunak is not have prop him up for— british people. rishi sunak is not have prop him up for as- british people. rishi sunak is not have prop him up for as long - british people. rishi sunak is not have prop him up for as long as. british people. rishi sunak is not. have prop him up for as long as he has _ have prop him up for as long as he has the _ have prop him up for as long as he has. the british _ have prop him up for as long as he has. the british public— have prop him up for as long as he has. the british public should - have prop him up for as long as he has. the british public should notl has. the british public should not be paying — has. the british public should not be paying for— has. the british public should not be paying for the _ has. the british public should not be paying for the lawbreaker- has. the british public should not be paying for the lawbreaker and| be paying for the lawbreaker and liar be paying for the lawbreaker and tiar for— be paying for the lawbreaker and tiar for his — be paying for the lawbreaker and liar for his legal— be paying for the lawbreaker and liar for his legal defence - be paying for the lawbreaker and liar for his legal defence when i be paying for the lawbreaker and| liar for his legal defence when he does _ liar for his legal defence when he does not — liar for his legal defence when he does not have _ liar for his legal defence when he does not have a _ liar for his legal defence when he does not have a defence - liar for his legal defence when he does not have a defence becausei liar for his legal defence when he i does not have a defence because he is bang _ does not have a defence because he is band to _ does not have a defence because he is band to rights _ does not have a defence because he is bang to rights and _ does not have a defence because he is bang to rights and what _ does not have a defence because he is bang to rights and what he - does not have a defence because he is bang to rights and what he has i is bang to rights and what he has done _ is bang to rights and what he has done. �* . ., done. angela rayner there. the de - u done. angela rayner there. the deputy leader- _ done. angela rayner there. the deputy leader. boris _ done. angela rayner there. the deputy leader. boris johnson i done. angela rayner there. the |

deputy leader. boris johnson still deputy leader. borisjohnson still has some supporters, including in parliament. let hear now from conservative mp michael fabricant. it is quite clear how he misled parliament. what is less clear, and i have not read the evidence, is whether he knowingly misled parliament. that might sound like dancing on the head of a needle, but actually, it is quite an important point. normally, the privileges committee would look at whether someone knowingly tried to mislead parliament. he maintained, of course, that he was getting legal advice, that it was legal. i will not argue that, now. as i say, i have not read the evidence. what i am concerned about is that, a number of people have criticised others who have impugned the nature of the privileges committee. what i do want to say is that i was there when borisjohnson to say is that i was there when boris johnson gave to say is that i was there when borisjohnson gave evidence to the committee. now, that committee stands in the quasi judicial role, unlike the court ofjustice, and when borisjohnson was answering

questions, i could see members of the committee, not all of them, some of them behaved with great dignity as jurors would do of them behaved with great dignity asjurors would do in of them behaved with great dignity as jurors would do in the courts, but some of them were pulling faces, looking skywards, turning their backs on birthjohnson... and you know, justice doesn'tjust have to be done, it has to be seen to be done. be done, it has to be seen to be done, ., be done, it has to be seen to be done. ., .,, ., , ., ~ done. so, that was conservative mp, michael fabricant, _ done. so, that was conservative mp, michael fabricant, who _ done. so, that was conservative mp, michael fabricant, who was - done. so, that was conservative mp, michael fabricant, who was recently| michael fabricant, who was recently on borisjohnson's honours list. but, now let's speak to senior fellow at the institute for government, a nonpartisan think tank. thank you forjoining us. there has been a day of huge reaction to what is a big political moment here. what have you made of this report into borisjohnson's conduct? i this report into boris johnson's conduct? ~ . this report into boris johnson's conduct? ,, ., , conduct? i think what is really interesting — conduct? i think what is really interesting about _ conduct? i think what is really interesting about it _ conduct? i think what is really interesting about it is - conduct? i think what is really interesting about it is that, i conduct? i think what is really interesting about it is that, if| conduct? i think what is really i interesting about it is that, if you like, _ interesting about it is that, if you like. it— interesting about it is that, if you like. it is— interesting about it is that, if you like. it is a — interesting about it is that, if you like, it is a report of two halves. 0ne _

like, it is a report of two halves. one half— like, it is a report of two halves. one half is— like, it is a report of two halves. one half is looking at the issue that 0ne half is looking at the issue that has— one half is looking at the issue that has been investigated for months. — that has been investigated for months, did borisjohnson mislead parliament. was it deliberate, knowingly, orwas parliament. was it deliberate, knowingly, or was it recklessly misleading? they found that on that day she _ misleading? they found that on that day she did deliberately mislead parliament, he could not reasonably have thought that there were not parties _ have thought that there were not parties when he was telling parliament that there were not. but, ithink— parliament that there were not. but, i think that _ parliament that there were not. but, i think that the more interesting thing _ i think that the more interesting thing in — i think that the more interesting thing in some ways is the second half of— thing in some ways is the second half of the — thing in some ways is the second half of the charge against boris johnson, — half of the charge against boris johnson, which really revolves around — johnson, which really revolves around the reaction, first against his evident— around the reaction, first against his evident session when jacob rees mogg _ his evident session when jacob rees mogg denounced it as unfair process. but, then, _ mogg denounced it as unfair process. but, then, borisjohnson's vehement reaction _ but, then, borisjohnson's vehement reaction when he saw the report on friday— reaction when he saw the report on friday evening which led to what the committee _ friday evening which led to what the committee describes as further attempts at denigrating. and that

seemed _ attempts at denigrating. and that seemed to have persuaded them to up the sanctions from something that they say— the sanctions from something that they say would have triggered a recall— they say would have triggered a recall anyway, soever ten days, we don't _ recall anyway, soever ten days, we don't know — recall anyway, soever ten days, we don't know how much over ten days, but up _ don't know how much over ten days, but up to— don't know how much over ten days, but up to this — don't know how much over ten days, but up to this 90 day sanction they have recommended, which i think it is well— have recommended, which i think it is well in _ have recommended, which i think it is well in excess of any of the numbers— is well in excess of any of the numbers talked about before. you have numbers talked about before. gm. have mentioned that those are pretty severe sanctions, much more severe than anyone expected. but, a lot of people we have been speaking to here on the bbc have been saying that this is something that could restore people's faith in parliament. do you think that is a reasonable assessment? i think that is a reasonable assessment?— think that is a reasonable assessment? ~ �* . think that is a reasonable assessment? ~' �* ., ., assessment? i think we'll have to see what happens _ assessment? i think we'll have to see what happens now. _ assessment? i think we'll have to see what happens now. clearly, . see what happens now. clearly, privileges — see what happens now. clearly, privileges committee, it isjust a committee, they have decided to take a stand _ committee, they have decided to take a stand and _ committee, they have decided to take a stand and say, it is important that— a stand and say, it is important that we — a stand and say, it is important that we uphold one of the key pillars— that we uphold one of the key pillars of— that we uphold one of the key pillars of parliamentary democracy, that is— pillars of parliamentary democracy, that is part — pillars of parliamentary democracy, that is part of the ability to scrutinise the executive, and that means— scrutinise the executive, and that means that executives must not scrutinise — means that executives must not scrutinise the house. i think what people _ scrutinise the house. i think what people will— scrutinise the house. i think what people will then be looking to is

how mps— people will then be looking to is how mps react to this. our conservative mps looking at this, do they decide, yes, we want to rally behind _ they decide, yes, we want to rally behind the — they decide, yes, we want to rally behind the committee, the full conservative members on the committee who wrote the sanctions, or do— committee who wrote the sanctions, or do we _ committee who wrote the sanctions, or do we actually want to back up the boris — or do we actually want to back up the borisjohnson narrative that this is— the borisjohnson narrative that this is a — the borisjohnson narrative that this is a sort of unseemly plot to -et this is a sort of unseemly plot to get rid _ this is a sort of unseemly plot to get rid of— this is a sort of unseemly plot to get rid of somebody because he delivered — get rid of somebody because he delivered brexit. that is really quite — delivered brexit. that is really quite a — delivered brexit. that is really quite a testing moment, we will see that when— quite a testing moment, we will see that when it comes to a vote, where the majority— that when it comes to a vote, where the majority of conservative mps go. ithink— the majority of conservative mps go. i think the _ the majority of conservative mps go. i think the committee has decided to make _ i think the committee has decided to make a _ i think the committee has decided to make a stand, really interesting question— make a stand, really interesting question is where the rest of parliament decided to make a stand over this _ parliament decided to make a stand overthis. 0r, parliament decided to make a stand overthis. or, does it parliament decided to make a stand over this. or, does it degenerate into what— over this. or, does it degenerate into what will look like parliament demanding high standards of the executive, or potentially, mp saying that this _ executive, or potentially, mp saying that this is _ executive, or potentially, mp saying that this is a bit of a witchhunt against — that this is a bit of a witchhunt against disgruntled people or a former— against disgruntled people or a former mp. against disgruntled people or a former mr— against disgruntled people or a former mp. . ~' ,, , . against disgruntled people or a former mp. ., ,, i. , . ., former mp. thank you very much for

our former mp. thank you very much for your thoughts. _ former mp. thank you very much for your thoughts, that _ former mp. thank you very much for your thoughts, that was _ former mp. thank you very much for your thoughts, that was the - former mp. thank you very much for your thoughts, that was the senior l your thoughts, that was the senior research fellow and low and fellow for the research government think tank. i now have another guest. let pick up where we just left off. we were talking about what how what happens next is important, what we see happening in parliament on monday, for instance.— see happening in parliament on monday, for instance. certainly in terms of the _ monday, for instance. certainly in terms of the politics _ monday, for instance. certainly in terms of the politics of _ monday, for instance. certainly in terms of the politics of the - terms of the politics of the government and conservative party. it seems to me the key question immediately in british politics is the extent to which, as a sort of civil war in the conservative party between the pro—borisjohnson wayne andy pro rishi sunak, the current prime minister weighing. 0r, andy pro rishi sunak, the current prime ministerweighing. or, will andy pro rishi sunak, the current prime minister weighing. or, will it be that in the end, some boris johnson supporters... eventually it will fizzle out, there is no mutiny, it is just rather muted, despite a lot of noise today and on monday perhaps when this is all debated. we do not know exactly how it is going

to work out. clearly, feelings are very high on both sides, but of course, rishi sunak is hoping that in the end, borisjohnson's supporters in the conservative party might consider it suicidal to mount a mutiny. he might consider it suicidal to mount a mutin . . might consider it suicidal to mount a mutin . , ., a mutiny. he is remaining tight-tipped _ a mutiny. he is remaining tight-lipped about - a mutiny. he is remaining tight-lipped about this, . a mutiny. he is remaining . tight-lipped about this, the a mutiny. he is remaining - tight-lipped about this, the prime tight—lipped about this, the prime banister. what next for boris johnson? i banister. what next for boris johnson? ., �* ~' banister. what next for boris johnson?— banister. what next for boris johnson? ., �* ,, ., , johnson? i don't think that he is auoin to johnson? i don't think that he is going to go _ johnson? i don't think that he is going to go away. _ johnson? i don't think that he is going to go away, right? - johnson? i don't think that he is going to go away, right? he - johnson? i don't think that he is going to go away, right? he is . going to go away, right? he is young, ambitious, he has all sorts of skills, he is incredibly witty, incredibly good at communicating with an audience. i do not think he will disappear, he will notjoin the club of quiet ex prime minister is with a political comeback.- club of quiet ex prime minister is with a political comeback. thank you very much. — with a political comeback. thank you very much. our— with a political comeback. thank you very much, our political— very much, our political correspondent rob watson. here at westminster, we continue to gather all of the reaction that has been spawned by the release of this report into whether borisjohnson misled parliament deliberately. it has been found that he has. we will have all the latest, so it is on bbc

news. live from london, this is bbc news. former prime minister borisjohnson deliberately misled parliament over breaches of covid rules. those are the findings of a committee of mps. the findings of a committee of mp5. the search continues for hundreds of migrants feared missing after a crowded boat sinks off the southern coast of greece. heavy rains and gusty winds lashed parts of northwest india and southern pakistan as a cyclone approaches. former labour mp and oscar—winning actress glenda jackson has died at 87.