these are clearly damaging to the bbc, it's not a good situation. hello, i'm lucy hawkings. welcome to bbc news now, three hours of fast—moving news, interviews and reaction. we start with major developments in the allegations that a bbc presenter paid thousands of pounds to a teenager for explicit photos. the bbc has released new details of its investigation into the claims. it says just two attempts were made over several weeks to contact the family concerned. the bbc also says that the unnamed presenter was not spoken to about the issue until seven weeks after the complaint was made. in the last hour, the corporation's

director general tim davie conceded that the allegations had been "clearly damaging". the bbc has been asked to pause its investigation by police while they make further inquiries. tim davie was speaking to bbc radio 4. things did certainly pick up from when the sun reported last thursday but when you look at the time line, the question is partly because the bbc said the san's report contains new allegations, what was the initial complaint? in new allegations, what was the initial complaint?— new allegations, what was the initial complaint? in terms of the situation we _ initial complaint? in terms of the situation we got _ initial complaint? in terms of the situation we got on _ initial complaint? in terms of the situation we got on our _ initial complaint? in terms of the situation we got on our hands, i l situation we got on our hands, i want to say upfront, you are balancing serious allegations, duty of care, privacy issues and legitimate public interests and how do you navigate that fairly, calmly and do due diligence? i've given

context to a few people in terms of the numbers of issues we get coming into our corporate investigations unit. oversix into our corporate investigations unit. over six months that will be about 250 and you take those and they are the serious complaints that are coming through of all different types. what happens is we have an outstanding corporate investigations team, they are very experienced, they assess the complaint. i'm not going to go into the absolute specifics because of privacy concerns... i specifics because of privacy concerns. . ._ specifics because of privacy concerns... , . ., , concerns... i understand that but the question _ concerns. .. i understand that but the question of— concerns... i understand that but the question of how _ concerns... i understand that but the question of how it _ concerns... i understand that but the question of how it differed i the question of how it differed because it was judged to be the question of how it differed because it wasjudged to be not the question of how it differed because it was judged to be not a legal when it was assessed back in may —— not illegal. how did it differ? i may -- not illegal. how did it differ? ., ., , differ? i want to be careful in terms of— differ? i want to be careful in terms of what _ differ? i want to be careful in terms of what i _ differ? i want to be careful in terms of what i can _ differ? i want to be careful in terms of what i can give - differ? i want to be careful in terms of what i can give you | differ? i want to be careful in - terms of what i can give you about the specifics of the complaint, the facts are there that the corporate investigations team looked at the log that is a summary of the call.

we got clear records of an interaction that lasted through the call in the summary of that call of 29 minutes, summary then goes to the corporate investigations team, passed by audience services and they assessed it. in passed by audience services and they assessed it. ., passed by audience services and they assessed it. . , ., , assessed it. in that summary, in the information — assessed it. in that summary, in the information that _ assessed it. in that summary, in the information that the _ assessed it. in that summary, in the information that the bbc _ assessed it. in that summary, in the information that the bbc became - information that the bbc became aware of at that stage, was it clear that as the family have suggested, that as the family have suggested, that there were contacts made and they dated back three years? from when the child was 20? i they dated back three years? from when the child was 20?— they dated back three years? from when the child was 20? i cannot get into specifics. _ when the child was 20? i cannot get into specifics, what _ when the child was 20? i cannot get into specifics, what i _ when the child was 20? i cannot get into specifics, what i would - when the child was 20? i cannot get into specifics, what i would say - when the child was 20? i cannot get into specifics, what i would say is i into specifics, what i would say is that it was clearly serious allegations because they were serious because we gave them... or the corporate investigations team decided to push forward and investigate the case. it's very important that the team saw them as a serious allegations.— a serious allegations. which seems weird that the _ a serious allegations. which seems weird that the presenter _ a serious allegations. which seems weird that the presenter was - a serious allegations. which seems weird that the presenter was only | weird that the presenter was only spoken to injuly the 6th. let’s

spoken to in july the 6th. let's talk about _ spoken to in july the 6th. let's talk about that _ spoken to in july the 6th. let's talk about that because - spoken to in july the 6th. let's talk about that because i - spoken to injuly the 6th. iezt�*s talk about that because i think that's a really important point which is if you've got an allegation coming into a corporate investigations team, i think you need to balance the concerns of duty of care, privacy, all those things i talked about, i don't think you take that complaint direct to a presenter. if you just worked out through, if anything that comes through, if anything that comes through or any car that hasn't been verified just gets brought in front of someone, i would say it's important at that point to validate that, to have notjust the services team about the specialist talk to that individual, understand their concerns and go through that process. concerns and go through that rocess. �* ., y concerns and go through that rocess. �* ., , ., process. but there were only two attem ts process. but there were only two attempts made _ process. but there were only two attempts made to _ process. but there were only two attempts made to contact - process. but there were only two attempts made to contact the . process. but there were only two - attempts made to contact the family, won by e—mail, one by phone. does that seem fine to you? i won by e-mail, one by phone. does that seem fine to you?— that seem fine to you? i think that's a fine _ that seem fine to you? i think that's a fine question - that seem fine to you? i think that's a fine question and - that seem fine to you? i think that's a fine question and as l that's a fine question and as director—general i want to look at a couple of things, immediately, to we

raised a red flag quick enough on complaints of this nature? and second is protocol, there will be learning from this case. the one thing is the case was kept open so that does not mean we had finished. we have a process where we keep going back, we leave a bit of time and then we go back so the case was kept open. it and then we go back so the case was ke -t 0 en. ., , and then we go back so the case was ke--toen. ., and then we go back so the case was ke--toen. . ., ., kept open. it was left a lot of time when ou kept open. it was left a lot of time when you consider— kept open. it was left a lot of time when you consider that _ kept open. it was left a lot of time when you consider that was - kept open. it was left a lot of time when you consider that was the i kept open. it was left a lot of time i when you consider that was the 18th or 19th of may until last thursday. you can see from the timeline, they were contacted, there was no response, we can debate how many times that should have happened but the allegations were taken seriously. d0 the allegations were taken seriously-— the allegations were taken seriousl . ~ �*, ., seriously. do you think it's all the resenter seriously. do you think it's all the presenter was — seriously. do you think it's all the presenter was only _ seriously. do you think it's all the presenter was only spoken - seriously. do you think it's all the presenter was only spoken to - seriously. do you think it's all thej presenter was only spoken to last thursday? —— that it is odd? presenter was only spoken to last thursday? -- that it is odd? no... what was — thursday? -- that it is odd? no... what was his— thursday? -- that it is odd? no... what was his response, _ thursday? -- that it is odd? no... what was his response, has - thursday? -- that it is odd? no... what was his response, has he - thursday? -- that it is odd? no... - what was his response, has he denied it? �* ., ., ., ., ., it? i'm not going to get into a secific it? i'm not going to get into a

specific conversation - it? i'm not going to get into a specific conversation about i it? i'm not going to get into a| specific conversation about the presenter. i haven't spoken to him. he's been spoken to by a senior manager. he's been spoken to by a senior manauer. ., , he's been spoken to by a senior manauer. ., y he's been spoken to by a senior manager-— he's been spoken to by a senior manauer. ., y ., , i] manager. has he offered to resign? i think we have — manager. has he offered to resign? i think we have to _ manager. has he offered to resign? i think we have to respect _ manager. has he offered to resign? i think we have to respect the - manager. has he offered to resign? i think we have to respect the privacy. think we have to respect the privacy of the employee. he think we have to respect the privacy of the employee-— of the employee. he has not been named but — of the employee. he has not been named but everyone _ of the employee. he has not been named but everyone in _ of the employee. he has not been named but everyone in this - of the employee. he has not been i named but everyone in this building knows who it is and there are an awful lot of people who you also have a duty of care to, male presenters on air, who are having to go on air to say that it's not them. it's not a sustainable situation. i5 it's not a sustainable situation. is a difficult and complex situation and we are trying to calmly and judiciously navigate our way through quite difficult circumstances whereas i said you go to balance duty of care issues, privacy issues. i think i would restate that it is absolutely not the right thing to be doing to speculate, some of the malicious stuff online. i understand. i— malicious stuff online. i understand. i would - malicious stuff online. i - understand. i would condemn malicious stuff online. i _ understand. i would condemn that but

i have to understand. i would condemn that but i have to make — understand. i would condemn that but i have to make those _ understand. i would condemn that but i have to make those calls _ understand. i would condemn that but i have to make those calls as - i have to make those calls as director—general in a balanced manner. director-general in a balanced manner. �* , ., ., , �* manner. but the situation isn't sustainable, _ manner. but the situation isn't sustainable, is _ manner. but the situation isn't sustainable, is it? _ manner. but the situation isn't sustainable, is it? we - manner. but the situation isn't sustainable, is it? we need . manner. but the situation isn't sustainable, is it? we need to| manner. but the situation isn't i sustainable, is it? we need to let the olice sustainable, is it? we need to let the police do _ sustainable, is it? we need to let the police do their— sustainable, is it? we need to let the police do their work— sustainable, is it? we need to let the police do their work in - sustainable, is it? we need to let the police do their work in terms| sustainable, is it? we need to let i the police do their work in terms of seeking evidence and further activity. seeking evidence and further activi . ., seeking evidence and further activi . . , ., , seeking evidence and further activi . . , ., activity. have there been any other alleaations activity. have there been any other allegations or _ activity. have there been any other allegations or complaints - activity. have there been any other allegations or complaints made i allegations or complaints made against the same presenter? because this is an active _ against the same presenter? because this is an active police _ against the same presenter? because this is an active police discussion i this is an active police discussion in terms of them looking forward, i cannot comment on that. we in terms of them looking forward, i cannot comment on that.— in terms of them looking forward, i cannot comment on that. we are now in a situation _ cannot comment on that. we are now in a situation where _ cannot comment on that. we are now in a situation where the _ cannot comment on that. we are now in a situation where the child's - in a situation where the child's mother and stepfather are saying actually, let's look at the front page of the sun, the bbc are liars, and they say, where did the child who has employed a lawyer, where did they get the money to pay for that? do you know categorically that the presenter did not pay for those legal fees? presenter did not pay for those legalfees? because presenter did not pay for those legal fees? because that's the suggestion being made. that's not

information _ suggestion being made. that's not information i _ suggestion being made. that's not information i am _ suggestion being made. that's not information i am party _ suggestion being made. that's not information i am party to. - suggestion being made. that's not information i am party to. i- suggestion being made. that's not information i am party to. i think i information i am party to. i think that's not something for the bbc, bluntly. fir that's not something for the bbc, bluntl . a , , bluntly. or whether thick presenter has been in — bluntly. or whether thick presenter has been in contact _ bluntly. or whether thick presenter has been in contact with _ bluntly. or whether thick presenter has been in contact with the - bluntly. or whether thick presenter i has been in contact with the person? that's not for the bbc —— or whether the presenter has been in contact with the person? i the presenter has been in contact with the person?— with the person? i think is a duty of care for— with the person? i think is a duty of care for everyone _ with the person? i think is a duty of care for everyone involved i with the person? i think is a duty of care for everyone involved but| of care for everyone involved but for the bbc in a corporate manner, we need to make sure we are taking the evidence we've got and presenting back to the police and taking that forward. here presenting back to the police and taking that forward.— presenting back to the police and taking that forward. here you are, the director-general— taking that forward. here you are, the director-general of— taking that forward. here you are, the director-general of the - taking that forward. here you are, the director-general of the bbc i the director—general of the bbc whose reputation is so important and a high figure who is unnamed but there's an awful lot of speculation about have serious accusations against them, is it a bit odd you haven't spoken to them? i against them, is it a bit odd you haven't spoken to them? i think it's critical they — haven't spoken to them? i think it's critical they are _ haven't spoken to them? i think it's critical they are spoken _ haven't spoken to them? i think it's critical they are spoken to - haven't spoken to them? i think it's critical they are spoken to by -

haven't spoken to them? i think it's critical they are spoken to by a i critical they are spoken to by a very senior manager, that is appropriate, and i think myself as director—general, i'm playing the right role in overseeing the process across it. that, i think is the right thing. across it. that, i think is the right thing-— across it. that, i think is the riarhtthin. . ., ., right thing. we are in a situation where the _ right thing. we are in a situation where the sun _ right thing. we are in a situation where the sun has _ right thing. we are in a situation where the sun has on _ right thing. we are in a situation where the sun has on its - right thing. we are in a situation where the sun has on its front i right thing. we are in a situation i where the sun has on its front page" the bbc are liars" and a story about an unnamed presenter, what do you think about the way they have reported it, have a published prematurely?— reported it, have a published rematurel ? , ., , ., , ., prematurely? these are questions for them, i've prematurely? these are questions for them. we laid _ prematurely? these are questions for them, i've laid out— prematurely? these are questions for them, i've laid out the _ prematurely? these are questions for them, i've laid out the facts _ prematurely? these are questions for them, i've laid out the facts from i them, i've laid out the facts from them, i've laid out the facts from the bbc�*s point of view and this timeline is absolutely what happened with regards to interaction with the bbc. we are very clear in terms of the bbc�*s decision—making what the choices were at each stage of the process. as you talked about earlier, it was a difficult situation in which we were not getting response to attempts to get more information. when the information came to me on the 6th of july, i think we acted very

speedily. july, i think we acted very speedily-— july, i think we acted very seedil . ,, july, i think we acted very seedil . ., speedily. so when you look at the timetable, _ speedily. so when you look at the timetable. you — speedily. so when you look at the timetable, you are _ speedily. so when you look at the timetable, you are quite - speedily. so when you look at the timetable, you are quite satisfied| timetable, you are quite satisfied with it? i timetable, you are quite satisfied with it? ~' timetable, you are quite satisfied with it? ~ ., �* , ., with it? i think that's the wrong characterisation. _ with it? i think that's the wrong characterisation. i _ with it? i think that's the wrong characterisation. i understand i with it? i think that's the wrong l characterisation. i understand the timetable and follow the process. what i've said is you always have lessons that you learn from these situations and we are doing two things, firstly, i think there is a valid question that i'm asking which is how are complaints like this red flag through the organisation? i want that immediately looked at and with the overall processing protocols to make sure we are satisfied by them. lots of questions were raised by sarah about the timeline in terms of the procedure. sarah about the timeline in terms of the procedure-— the procedure. courtney bembridge “oins me the procedure. courtney bembridge joins me now- _ joins me now. many questions remain but let's go

through and through what we know according to the timeline released by the bbc in the past few hours. we start on may the 18th. the bbc says this is when the complainant first walked into a bbc building to make the initial complaint against a bbc presenter. we don't know what was in that complaint, but we know that it took seven weeks from that date until the presenter at the centre of these allegations was spoken to for these allegations was spoken to for the first time. may 18, the complaint is made. the next day it is referred to the bbc�*s corporate investigations team who assessed the complaint and found there was no allegation of criminality but said nonetheless it warranted further investigation. now we are on may 19, let's fast forward three weeks. on may 19 there was an e—mail sent by the bbc team but there was no

response received. then three weeks later, onjune the 6th, the bbc again trying to call the complainant for the first time. this is three weeks after the e—mail was sent, there is a call but that coal doesn't connect. that's the first to lay the bbc is facing questions over. the next delay, we are in during the sixth, we are going to go to the next point in our timeline on july six, one month delay they are at too and that's when the sun first the allegations it intends to publish. on that day, we know the director—general tim davie who we've been hearing from our lot was first made aware of these allegations and it's also then is that the presenter is spoken to about this matter for the first time. the very next day, sun publishes the story and the

complainant again and we are told they were were successful in getting through to them. also on that day, the bbc speaks to the police. then we go forward to the next day and we are told the complainant sent material to the bbc relating to that allegation. the day after, the bbc confirmed that the presenter had been suspended. now we are into this week, the bbc met with the police yesterday and we are told that as part of that meeting, the police asked the bbc to pause the organisation's investigation. then today, we had the timeline released by the bbc and questions asked of the director—general tim davie. a lot of questions about the delay, from the moment the initial complaint was filed to the moment that the presenter at the centre of this was informed and that the director—general was told.

joining me now is tim luckhurst — a former bbc news executive. i think there is a real issue as to whether or not the complaint was taken seriously enough in the first instance. the procedure appears to have been followed, but was followed by sufficient urgency? at this point, i think there a crucial caveat and one that perhaps was a little bit absent from the director—general�*s interview and i understand why but we do not know what these allegations are. we do not know whether they are true and there is a dispute between the family and the young person as to whether or not these allegations are in fact true. let's bear that in mind. but if the allegations were serious, a big question arises about what the bbc was actually told back

in may, how much it knew back in may and if it had received really serious allegations. it said it did not assess them is criminal but it did assess them as serious. did it therefore progressed them quickly enough? tim davie has asked that question and said he has asked the question and said he has asked the question if they were red flagged early enough, that's an important question. do early enough, that's an important ruestion. ,, early enough, that's an important ruestion. , question. do you believe tim davie is makin: question. do you believe tim davie is making the _ question. do you believe tim davie is making the right _ question. do you believe tim davie is making the right calls _ question. do you believe tim davie is making the right calls at - question. do you believe tim davie is making the right calls at the i is making the right calls at the moment when he says he has to balance the duty of care, privacy and the serious allegations? are you satisfied with how he has been handling this? i satisfied with how he has been handling this?— handling this? i think it's an extraordinarily _ handling this? i think it's an extraordinarily difficult i handling this? i think it's an i extraordinarily difficult balance but he is right that he has got those competing priorities and he's absolutely right to say that whilst the police are considering whether or not to launch a criminal investigation, we know they are considering to do, they haven't yet launched an investigation, it's very difficult for the bbc to make rapid progress. that's a problem because the prime minister has made it clear he would like this progress to be

completed quickly and vigorously. at the moment, he's a slightly on hold because the police have to make room for decisions but the director—general, i think he is behaving entirely correctly, he does have to consider the interests of the bbc employee and the laws on privacy and he does have to consider, of course, the needs of the young person involved in these allegations. those are difficult, competing priorities and i think the director—general has got a really difficult balancing act to carry out. a , difficult balancing act to carry out. , , ., ., , out. many people today have been su: arestin out. many people today have been suggesting that — out. many people today have been suggesting that the _ out. many people today have been suggesting that the presenter i out. many people today have been i suggesting that the presenter should go public. would you suggest that to this unnamed presenter? ida. go public. would you suggest that to this unnamed presenter?— this unnamed presenter? no, is the law currently _ this unnamed presenter? no, is the law currently stands, _ this unnamed presenter? no, is the law currently stands, he _ this unnamed presenter? no, is the law currently stands, he is - this unnamed presenter? no, is the law currently stands, he is under. this unnamed presenter? no, is the law currently stands, he is under noj law currently stands, he is under no obligation to identify himself —— as the law stands. the way that the privacy laws currently operate, he will not be compelled to do so. i think those privacy laws need to be looked at carefully again. i think the notion that we don't allow

someone to be identified until they've been charged is an invention which is recent and i think is a deficit in british law, it's in english law, i think we should be able to identify people and which point the police question them and allow them to defend themselves in public as robustly as they can but under privacy laws that is currently not possible and i understand why. lizo is still with us. we thrown a lot of questions at our viewers. wrap up today for us, what happens now? ~ �* ., wrap up today for us, what happens now? ~ �* . . ., ., now? we've had the director general tim davie speaking _ now? we've had the director general tim davie speaking for— now? we've had the director general tim davie speaking for the _ now? we've had the director general tim davie speaking for the first i tim davie speaking for the first time since this enter the news last friday evening. he has said that the bbc's friday evening. he has said that the bbc�*s investigation into what has happened here has been put on pause because the metropolitan police and the bbc had a meeting yesterday and the bbc had a meeting yesterday and the police requested that the bbc paused their investigation until

they have completed whatever inquiries they decide are eventually appropriate. right now, the metropolitan police are carrying out a scoping exercise, is not a full—blown investigation, it might go into that area, it might not, but at the moment, the police are scoping and trying to assess how they should move forward with all of this. at the same time, the bbc has agreed not to move forward with its investigation but it is looking more widely at its complaints procedure and is there an issue with how seriously complaints are taken when they had initially made? is there a way that some complaints should be red flagged, move tired of the chain with more urgency —— moved higher up the chain? the bbc is looking at this and eventually they will be some kind of bbc investigation into what has gone on but that will take

place after whichever inquiries the police are making have reached their full conclusion. i police are making have reached their full conclusion.— full conclusion. i had an update to brina full conclusion. i had an update to bring you. — full conclusion. i had an update to bring you. from — full conclusion. i had an update to bring you, from the _ full conclusion. i had an update to bring you, from the bbc— full conclusion. i had an update to bring you, from the bbc website, | bring you, from the bbc website, where the met police has released a statement saying, we have asked the bbc to pause its investigation while we continue our assessment, to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed. but this is new, the assessment is being led by detectives from the met�*s specialist crime command and follows a meeting with bbc representatives on monday the 10th ofjuly. there remains no police investigation at this time. the met assessment being led by specialist crime command, that statementjust clarifying for all of us there is no police investigation at this time. you can see the statement on the bbc website.

stay with us, this is bbc news. mortgage costs have hit their highest level after last year's mini budget. the average rate on such a deal is now 6.66%, a level not seen since august 2008. wages in the uk excluding bonuses grew by 7.3% in the three months to may compared to last year, equalling the highest growth rate on records. the figures have raised concerns among analysts that inflation will stay high for longer. the labour party says it has obtained figures showing that more than 500,000 patients in england have seen their gp practice permanently closed. that's in the last five years. they show that almost 200 practices closed between

2018 and 2022 due to a fall in the number of qualified doctors. president zelensky has strongly criticised nato for refusing to set out a timetable for when ukraine can join the alliance. at the nato summit in lithuania, the secretary generaljens stoltenberg said he wanted to send a clear and positive message to kyiv about its potential membership. the uk prime minister rishi sunak said he is hoping for progress on ukraine. our diplomatic correspondent james landale sent this report from vilnius. we have just heard that president zelensky has now landed here in the capital of lithuania to attend the summit. not as a nato member, but with very strong and very passionate ambitions tojoin. everyone here

wants ukraine tojoin ambitions tojoin. everyone here wants ukraine to join so ambitions tojoin. everyone here wants ukraine tojoin so i think it's pretty straightforward. u nfortu nately it's pretty straightforward. unfortunately it's anything but. delicate diplomacy will be required over the next couple of days because there is a gap between what president zelensky wants which is an immediate timetable forjoining nato and he wants firm commitments but there are some saying there won't be any nato membership where the conflict is going on and there are some nato members here who are reluctant to make firm commitments to a timetable for ukraine joining, even after the conflict. we are going to go through why there are some conflict. we can speak to emily ferris... this idea that ukraine wants to join nato, that everyone here from nato

wants them to join, what exactly is the difficulty? i wants them to “oin, what exactly is the difficulty?— wants them to “oin, what exactly is the ammun— the difficulty? i think there are several, there _ the difficulty? i think there are several, there is _ the difficulty? i think there are several, there is an _ the difficulty? i think there are several, there is an act - the difficulty? i think there are several, there is an act of i the difficulty? i think there are several, there is an act of warl several, there is an act of war going on in ukraine, the reluctance from nato to want to be engaged in a direct war with russia, there is the nuclear aspect and then i think it is this discussion about whether there will need to be other political conditions for ukrainian membership which now they are talking about not having to do. there are quite a few obstacles. what is a good summit here from ukraine's point of view or nato's point of view? 50 ukraine's point of view or nato's point of view?— point of view? so far it doesn't seem from _ point of view? so far it doesn't seem from the _ point of view? so far it doesn't seem from the ukrainian i point of view? so far it doesn't i seem from the ukrainian perspective it has been anything other than frustrating because some of the messaging coming out of nato is assurances and positive messaging but i think the view in the room from what we've seen today is there is a degree of frustration from the ukrainian side, there nothing that's

a clear signalfrom their a clear signal from their perspective. a clear signalfrom their perspective. i a clear signal from their perspective-— a clear signal from their perspective. a clear signal from their thersective. ., ., ., ,, ., perspective. i want to talk about turkey playing — perspective. i want to talk about turkey playing an _ perspective. i want to talk about turkey playing an important i perspective. i want to talk about turkey playing an important role perspective. i want to talk about i turkey playing an important role in this. turkey dropped its objections to swedenjoining i know it looks like sweden is on its way —— and now it looks like sweden is on its way. what changed for president eyre began to change his mind? == began to change his mind? -- president _ began to change his mind? —— president erdogan. turkey had legitimate you —— security concerns, turkey— legitimate you —— security concerns, turkey had _ legitimate you —— security concerns, turkey had to — legitimate you —— security concerns, turkey had to make this an issue and thals— turkey had to make this an issue and that's why— turkey had to make this an issue and that's why since madrid, finland, turkey— that's why since madrid, finland, turkey and — that's why since madrid, finland, turkey and sweden signed a trilateral memorandum, sweden also made _ trilateral memorandum, sweden also made an— trilateral memorandum, sweden also made an effort in demanding their constitution and also expanding their_ constitution and also expanding their fight against terrorism. we have _ their fight against terrorism. we have to — their fight against terrorism. we have to remember that on the ist of

june. _ have to remember that on the ist of june, some — have to remember that on the ist of june, some of the laws enacted by the swedish parliament started to be implemented. so it was natural for turkey— implemented. so it was natural for turkey to _ implemented. so it was natural for turkey to wait and see how the implementation would go. i think yesterday's meeting was an important opener~ _ yesterday's meeting was an important opener~ |t— yesterday's meeting was an important o-ener. . ., , , yesterday's meeting was an important o-ener. . . , , , opener. it certainly set the summit off in a positive _ opener. it certainly set the summit off in a positive way, _ opener. it certainly set the summit off in a positive way, people i opener. it certainly set the summit off in a positive way, people spoke| off in a positive way, people spoke about it as a historic moment. where does turkey stand on ukraine's succession into —— accession into nato? succession into -- accession into nato? ~ , succession into -- accession into nato? q ., , nato? turkey has always been supportive _ nato? turkey has always been supportive of _ nato? turkey has always been supportive of nato _ nato? turkey has always been supportive of nato and - nato? turkey has always been i supportive of nato and supports the membership of both georgia and ukraine — membership of both georgia and ukraine. for ukraine, maybe there will not _ ukraine. for ukraine, maybe there will not be — ukraine. for ukraine, maybe there will not be an invitation at this summit, — will not be an invitation at this summit, but the fact that tomorrow nato leaders will be meeting with president zelensky for the first time _ president zelensky for the first time at — president zelensky for the first time at the nato ukraine council

which _ time at the nato ukraine council which will— time at the nato ukraine council which will be established, and also the secretary general mentioned there _ the secretary general mentioned there were two requirements, invitation— there were two requirements, invitation and membership action plan, _ invitation and membership action plan, so — invitation and membership action plan, so membership action plan will no longer— plan, so membership action plan will no longer be a requirement for ukraine — no longer be a requirement for ukraine. ., ~ no longer be a requirement for ukraine. ., ,, , ., no longer be a requirement for ukraine. ., ~' ,, , no longer be a requirement for ukraine. ., ,, , . ukraine. thank you both very much. this nato summit _ ukraine. thank you both very much. this nato summit celebrating i ukraine. thank you both very much. i this nato summit celebrating sweden, soon to be coming in, ukraine's membership a bit more challenging. we'll be going back to vilnius throughout the day. we'll see you soon. a man has been found responsible for the killing of a nine—year—old girl in the us. lilia valetite was fatally stabbed in boston last

year... she was playing with a hula hoop yards away from her mother. the man charged was unfit to stand trial due to his mental health. we have been hearing that he was responsible for the killing, he did not attend the trial and could only be sentenced to a hospital order. this breaking news in the uk that a man has been found responsible for the killing of a nine—year—old girl, lilia valutyte, fatally stabbed in boston injuly lilia valutyte, fatally stabbed in boston in july last year. lilia valutyte, fatally stabbed in boston injuly last year. you will remember she was playing with a hula hoop yards away from her mother. deividas skebas was charged with her murder was unfit to enter a plea or stand trial due to his mental health earlier this year. he has instead

faced what was known as a trial of the facts to decide if he carried out the act of stabbing lilia valutyte to death. a jury at lincoln crown court has unanimously determined he was responsible for her killing. he did not attend the trial i can only be sentenced to a hospital order. —— and can only be sentenced to a hospital order. we will have more than that story soon but to the manger of the breaking news, a man has been found responsible for the killing of a nine—year—old girl in boston, lilia valutyte fatally stabbed in a street in july last valutyte fatally stabbed in a street injuly last year. valutyte fatally stabbed in a street in july last year. the valutyte fatally stabbed in a street injuly last year. the man charged with her murder was unfit to stand trial due to his mental health. stay with us on bbc news.