hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. the simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable, and those who lived in the tower were badly failed over a number of years. it should never have happened. the country failed to discharge its most fundamental duty — to protect you and your loved ones. human life was never| a priority, and we lost friends, neighbours, - and loved ones in the most horrific way — through greed, corruption, incompetence, . and negligence. the metropolitan police here in london say they will go through the report line by line, and look at the evidence they have already gathered. joining me tonight are susan bohne face, columnist at

the mirror, and former republican presidential candidatejoe republican presidential candidate joe walsh. perfect panel for what we've got in store for you. first, the latest headlines. four people have been killed and nine others injured in a shooting at a high school in georgia, just 50 miles north—east of atlanta. police have said a suspect is in custody. president biden called the shooting "another horrific reminder of how gun violence continues to tear communities apart". in a statement, he said ending the gun violence epidemic was personal to him. israel's prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, has addressed foreign media injerusalem — he said israel will not withdraw its troops from the border area between southern gaza and egypt until there is a guarantee that it can never be used as lifeline for hamas. russia has mounted another attack on ukraine, killing seven and injuring a7, in the western city of lviv. the city's mayor confirmed three children

were among the victims. he said over 50 civillian buildings were damaged, including medical and educational facilities. hundreds more migrants have been trying to cross the channel from france today, despite the deaths of 12 people yesterday when their dinghy capsized. officials in northern france say some of these boats are carrying more than 50 people. uk ministers have raised fears about people—smugglers cramming more and more migrants onto increasingly poor boats to risk the crossing. some live pictures we are looking at in georgia, we just been telling you the headlines they are about the four people killed in a shooting there this morning. president biden has just spoken about it in the last hour. those microphones have been set up for a press conference that we are expecting from local police in

the next few minutes, we will take you to that in just —— as soon as it happens. what are we supposed to make of the grenfell tower inquiry? it has taken six years to get to this point. the 1,700—page report that was published today by the chair of the inquiry, sir martin moore bick, is a catalague of systemic failure at every level. we have known for some time that the cause of the fire was the flammable cladding on the outside of the building. but the question sir martin and his colleagues were seeking to answer is why, and why for so long, the warnings about this cladding were ignored? from as early as 1991 to the disaster we witnessed in 2017 — so many players, so many oportunities to prevent what happened. here is sir martin outlining just how many organisations and companies bear responsibility for what unfolded. the simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable, and those who lived in the tower were badly failed — over a number of years, and in a number of different ways — by those who were responsible for ensuring

the safety of the building and its occupants. they include the government, the tenant management organisation, the royal borough of kensington and chelsea, those who manufactured and supplied to the materials used in the refurbishment, those who certified their suitability for use on high—rise buildings, the architect, the principal contractor, and some of its subcontractors — in particularly harley curtain wall and its successor, harley facades. some of the consultants, in particular the fire engineer exova warrington fire, the local authorities building control department, and the london fire brigade. not all of them bear the same degree of responsibility for the eventual disaster, but as our reports show, all contributed to it in one way or another,

in most cases through incompetence, but in some cases through dishonesty and greed. the failings can be traced back over many years, and our efforts to get to the bottom of what went wrong and why account for the length of our report and the time it has taken us to produce it. successive governments were well aware of the risks. in 1999, the environment and transport select committee warned, "it should not take a serious fire in which people were killed before steps are taken to minimize the risks posed by some external cladding systems." this afternoon, the prime minister apologised to the families of everyone involved. i want to start with an apology on behalf of the british state to each and every one of you, and indeed to all the families affected by this tragedy. it should never have happened.

the country failed to discharge its most fundamental duty — to protect you and your loved ones, the people that we are here to serve. and i am deeply sorry. but the families must now wait another year to 18 months before they find out whether any criminal charges will be brought. the deputy assistant commissioner of the met police, stuart cundy, said their investigation is independent of the public inquiry. it operates under a different legal framework. which begs the question, why did they need to wait for the inquiry to finish? sir michael mansfield, kc represented some of the survivors at the inquiry. that's exactly what happened in the early inquiries. zeebrugge, which heralded a free enterprise, roll on, roll off — there was, in fact, a public inquiry which ran alongside public prosecution. but doesn't that stop people speaking freely, because they can say, "look, this could be prejudicial to my defence

or whatever i say in a court case?" well, what happens is they get some sort of undertaking — as they all did in this one — saying that the evidence that they give can't be used against themselves. but that doesn't preclude evidence from other people being used against them. so the answer is, they may clam up if they want to — it doesn't look too good when they do and they refuse to answer questions, for example, or say they can't remember all the time. so the choice becomes theirs. it is the question everyone is asking, why did the met weight? because some people still involved in this are still in place and, arguably, still a threat to the public. it take so long? threat to the public. it take so [am ? �* , threat to the public. it take so long?— so long? it's different here than it is — so long? it's different here than it is in _ so long? it's different here than it is in the _ so long? it's different here than it is in the states, - so long? it's different here than it is in the states, i i than it is in the states, i don't know quite about your public inquiry system over there, joe, but here we have something about prejudice in court cases, and the idea is that the publicity and

reporting that will go on around the public inquiry would prejudice a jury and what they would decide. so that's why the dose things were always kept separate. and as we've seen, it just doesn't work. all too often — we all knew when we saw pictures of that tower going up like a roman candle — we all knew that there was stuff on the outside of that building that shouldn't have been there, we all knew it would've been cut back to be responsible in their be lots of different people and systemic failures that would allow that to all go horribly wrong. that's exactly what's come out. and if you knew that on day one, there's no reason, seeing as the police investigation started on day one, you couldn't have people prosecuted by now. the problem is all too often in this country, we order a public inquiry ostensibly to get to the bottom of something — but in reality to delayjustice because the public mood changes, people get their lawyers singed place, and it causes things to drag on and on. the people at the centre of

it aren't something people care about. �* , _ , . about. it's the systemic failure i _ about. it's the systemic failure i want _ about. it's the systemic failure i want to - about. it's the systemic failure i want to talk - about. it's the systemic - failure i want to talk about, we saw in the inquiry on covid, the infected blood scandal, we saw again today — public bodies that covered up or ignored the rules and buried mistakes. you worked on the government committee for insight and reform. how do you reinvigorate trust in public bodies, especially so after a failure like this one?— like this one? it's difficult, we all believe _ like this one? it's difficult, we all believe in _ like this one? it's difficult, we all believe in free - we all believe in free enterprise, i do, we all believe _ enterprise, i do, we all believe in the free market, we wanted — believe in the free market, we wanted to— believe in the free market, we wanted to work — but it can't work— wanted to work — but it can't work without regulation and oversight, and it certainly can't _ oversight, and it certainly can't work without accountability. here in the states, _ accountability. here in the states, as i'm sure over there, there _ states, as i'm sure over there, there are — states, as i'm sure over there, there are countless examples where — there are countless examples where the government has failed to regulate projects like this, and buildings like this, and

then— and buildings like this, and then catastrophes happen. it needs— then catastrophes happen. it needs to _ then catastrophes happen. it needs to be constant, and there needs— needs to be constant, and there needs to — needs to be constant, and there needs to be constant, and there needs to be — here in the states, _ needs to be — here in the states, as _ needs to be — here in the states, as i'm sure over there, government right now, we are going — government right now, we are going through a populist moment, government has a bad name _ moment, government has a bad name i'rn — moment, government has a bad name i'm a _ moment, government has a bad name. i'm a conservative and i don't _ name. i'm a conservative and i don't believe in an overbearing government, but we've got to -et government, but we've got to get back— government, but we've got to get back to a place where heapie _ get back to a place where people believe in government regulation to hold accountable when — regulation to hold accountable when real mistakes are made. that's— when real mistakes are made. that's a — when real mistakes are made. that's a really good point, joe, and susie, we have seen that in this country, this disdain for regulation, the bonfire of the red tape we talked about post—brexit. maybe now there's more trust in the regulation then in the government itself? i regulation then in the government itself? regulation then in the covernment itself? ~ ., government itself? i think that kind of conversation _ government itself? i think that kind of conversation has - government itself? i think that kind of conversation has beenl kind of conversation has been said as a conservative talking point in this country, and it isn't, it's a populist one. it's not naturally conservative

to let there be a free—for—all for things. to let there be a free—for—all forthings. it's to let there be a free—for—all for things. it's really important we try and get this right because one of the things that starmer�*s government needs to concentrate on is to find a model that a public inquiry system could work but deliver justice without slowing it down unnecessarily. fin justice without slowing it down unnecessarily.— unnecessarily. on that point, do ou unnecessarily. on that point, do you think _ unnecessarily. on that point, do you think you _ unnecessarily. on that point, do you think you should - unnecessarily. on that point, do you think you should justl do you think you should just accept all the recommendations of the report? because he said he'll take away this report, which has taken seven years to conclude, and he says he'll come back and tell us what he might or might not adopt. shouldn't hejust might or might not adopt. shouldn't he just adopted in full? i shouldn't he 'ust adopted in full? ~' shouldn't he 'ust adopted in full? ~ ., ., , full? i think one thing he has to do is make _ full? i think one thing he has to do is make sure _ full? i think one thing he has to do is make sure the - to do is make sure the prosecutions happen quickly. we hear there's another two years before a decision by the cps, but there repeated scandals like this, whether it's the miners strike, windrush, hillsborough, and the nuclear veterans i wrote about for the mirror, and i'm working with them at the moment to produce a new public inquiry system. those men are in their mid—80s,

there's no way they've got seven years, let alone waiting 17 forjustice, to wait for stuff. what we are calling for is to have a special one year public inquiry with all those powers in resources, but to look at something very specific over a short period of time, bang, get those answers and get things moving. jae. bang, get those answers and get things moving-— things moving. joe, what about lobb inc? things moving. joe, what about lobbying? the _ things moving. joe, what about lobbying? the families - things moving. joe, what about lobbying? the families here - things moving. joe, what about| lobbying? the families here say the construction industry was far too close to the government and regulators — we are know that there are vast sums of money —— of money involved in washington, social media companies lobby, boeing lobbies. do you worry industry has got too close to government because it props up the party system? because it props up the party s stem? ., , _ because it props up the party s stem? ,., system? look, lobbying is a fundamental _ system? look, lobbying is a fundamental part _ system? look, lobbying is a fundamental part of - system? look, lobbying is a fundamental part of our - system? look, lobbying is a . fundamental part of our system here, _ fundamental part of our system here, i'm — fundamental part of our system here, i'm sure your system there— here, i'm sure your system there as— here, i'm sure your system there as well — lobbying is every— there as well — lobbying is every bit _ there as well — lobbying is every bit as american apple pie — every bit as american apple pie. there are many who can lobby— pie. there are many who can lobby the _ pie. there are many who can lobby the government for what

they want. yes, corporate interests _ they want. yes, corporate interests are in bed with government interest, and we have — government interest, and we have a — government interest, and we have a revolving door here where _ have a revolving door here where members of government will leave government and get into the — will leave government and get into the lobbying industry, and we always try to improve certain— we always try to improve certain rules and regulations, but they— certain rules and regulations, but they are constantly abused. i'm but they are constantly abused. i'm just — but they are constantly abused. i'm just blown away by the fact thatjustice delayed isjustice denied — thatjustice delayed isjustice denied. my god, it's been 6—7 years— denied. my god, it's been 6—7 years and _ denied. my god, it's been 6—7 years and there is still no public— years and there is still no public accountability. we have so much to — public accountability. we have so much to get _ public accountability. we have so much to get to _ public accountability. we have so much to get to tonight. - public accountability. we have so much to get to tonight. inl so much to get to tonight. in lesser, a 14—year—old boy charged with murder against the 80—year—old man in lesser sure, reading some comment from the deputy crown prosecutor, saying they reviewed a file of evidence from lesser police and have authorised the charge of murder against that 14—year—old

boy, obviously proceedings now are active so we can't talk about it much more than that. we are also keeping an eye on the situation in georgia, we will maybe dip into a little bit of that after the break. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news.

the us attorney general, merrick garland, says russia is waging an online war to influence the upcoming presidential election. alonsgide fbi director chris wray, the attorney general told reporters this afternoon that they had mounting evidence pro—kremlin groups are targeting specific voter demographics and swing—state voters to manipulate the vote. as alleged in our court filings, president vladimir putin's inner circle, including sergey kolesnikov, collected russian public relations companies to promote

disinformation and state—sponsored narratives as part of a programme to influence the 2024 us presidential election. —— corrected russian public relations companies. -- corrected russian public relations companies.- relations companies. vice president, _ relations companies. vice president, harris - relations companies. vice president, harris will - relations companies. vice president, harris will be i president, harris will be surprised by that because she was on the committee that looked into that in 2016. but she might be surprised that there's been nothing put into place to prevent it.— place to prevent it. which is 'ust place to prevent it. which is just astounding _ place to prevent it. which is just astounding - _ place to prevent it. which is just astounding - what - place to prevent it. which is i just astounding - what russia just astounding — what russia did in— just astounding — what russia did in 2016 to help get donald trump — did in 2016 to help get donald trump elected was unprecedented. no part of the problem — unprecedented. no part of the problem is donald trump won in 2016, _ problem is donald trump won in 2016. he — problem is donald trump won in 2016. he is— problem is donald trump won in 2016, he is the nominee again, and for— 2016, he is the nominee again, and for eight years he's denied that russia did anything to help— that russia did anything to help him, even though everyone in our— help him, even though everyone in our intelligence community knows — in our intelligence community knows that they did. of the problem is, donald trump is the leader— problem is, donald trump is the leader of— problem is, donald trump is the leader of one of our two major political— leader of one of our two major political parties, and so the vast — political parties, and so the vast majority of the republican party— vast majority of the republican

party doesn't believe this is an issue _ party doesn't believe this is an issue and a problem, and these — an issue and a problem, and these are _ an issue and a problem, and these are the voters primarily that— these are the voters primarily that russia is feeding on because they want to get trump elected — because they want to get trump elected again. fire because they want to get trump elected again.— elected again. are washington -roducer elected again. are washington producer asked _ elected again. are washington producer asked our _ elected again. are washington producer asked our team - elected again. are washington producer asked our team news for a response —— rt for a response, is what they sent back. it goes on and on, but needless to say they don't take it seriously. in fact, they seem to find it highly amusing. they would, wouldn't _ to find it highly amusing. they would, wouldn't they? - to find it highly amusing. they would, wouldn't they? if - to find it highly amusing. they would, wouldn't they? if you l would, wouldn't they? if you are trying to interfere with a us election, just the fact that it's being reported means you've won. but the fact that it's being reported means they're doing it for free anyway, they're just messing with people's head. as far as putin is concerned, the whole

thing is highly delightful. the fact is that this is something that's been known about for a while, and it's one of those things which feeds into the general overall result. it may not be hugely influential, it only needs to be slightly influential in a couple places, a few votes here and there, and you have something like this — we've seen donald trump has been replacing some of the people —— influencing some of the people on the registration on election boards and swing states, and it's theirjob to say "we verified the vote and approved it." and these are people that if they have misinformation fit into their brains and they say there's a question here, it starts delaying the vote being verified, it means there's legal suits and the entirety of the american nation then starts doubting whether the election is as bona fide as it otherwise would be. is as bona fide as it otherwise would be— is as bona fide as it otherwise would be. ,, , ., ,, , ., ., , would be. susie makes a really aood would be. susie makes a really good point. — would be. susie makes a really good point, especially - would be. susie makes a really good point, especially when i would be. susie makes a really good point, especially when it| good point, especially when it comes to november, because right now there are roughly 15% of voters in swing states saying they are still

undecided. and in each of those states, the results are too close to call, the latest cnn polling suggesting the vice president, kamala harris, holds a slender advantage over donald trump amongst likely voters in wisconsin and michigan. let me show you those figures, you'll see trump leads in arizona right now, but they are tied within the margin of error in georgia... harris is trying to make up ground with those voters who give trump the edge on the economy. and today she is in the granite state, new hampshire, where she has been visiting a small micro brewery with a new proposal, that would mean much bigger tax credits, for start—ups and entrepreneurs. we're going to help more small businesses and innovators get off the ground, 0k? now, i'm setting what some, i'm sure, will call a very ambitious goal — but you know what, i think we should admire ambition each other. cheering so i want to see

25 million new small business applications by the end of my first term. cheering joe, there's been a rush to the centre ground, let me read you this from james carville. " ms. harris must break for mr biden on a series of policy she pleased would define her presidency. she will need to be clear about the contrast." how do you think her team will be thinking about that as they prepare for the debate next week? i prepare for the debate next week? ~' ,., prepare for the debate next week? ~ ,., . prepare for the debate next week? ~' . j week? i think so far, they've done well- — week? i think so far, they've done well. look, _ week? i think so far, they've done well. look, i— week? i think so far, they've done well. look, i agree - week? i think so far, they've| done well. look, i agree with week? i think so far, they've i done well. look, i agree with a lot of— done well. look, i agree with a lot of what— done well. look, i agree with a lot of what carville says. but for her — lot of what carville says. but for her to _ lot of what carville says. but for her to win — and by the way, — for her to win — and by the way, i— for her to win — and by the way, i don't want donald trump anywhere — way, i don't want donald trump anywhere near the white house again because i believe he's an existential threat to our democracy. but i think donald trump — democracy. but i think donald trump wins if the election is held — trump wins if the election is held tomorrow. i think, harris and _ held tomorrow. i think, harris and her—

held tomorrow. i think, harris and her team need held tomorrow. i think, harris and herteam need to held tomorrow. i think, harris and her team need to understand that they— and her team need to understand that they are behind right now, and they— that they are behind right now, and they need to run like there 20 points— and they need to run like there 20 points behind, not 20 minutes. and she needs to take the offensive, present a vision of what — the offensive, present a vision of what she wants to do with this country, where she wants to help — this country, where she wants to help take us. i think generally, herteam has to help take us. i think generally, her team has done a very— generally, her team has done a very good — generally, her team has done a very good job of that. and the other— very good job of that. and the other thing she has to do is take — other thing she has to do is take the _ other thing she has to do is take the offensive and take it to trump, and call him out for the threat _ to trump, and call him out for the threat he is, what we know is if this— the threat he is, what we know is if this election is about trump, _ is if this election is about trump, odds are he'll lose. its — trump, odds are he'll lose. it's interesting that the reporting in politico today is that the labour team that helped keir starmer when the election a couple months ago is now heading over to help kamala harris. if there is one thing that they could help her with, what would it be? and i'm thinking specifically about this move to the centre. i’m this move to the centre. i'm sure they're _ this move to the centre. i'm sure they're already - this move to the centre. in sure they're already on the same page, about electing a prosecutor and picking up that,

iugghng prosecutor and picking up that, juggling that ming vase across the slippery floor — the problem is that america and britain are two different countries, their citizens have two different ways of looking at things, we are two nations divided by a common language, and we have an entirely different electoral system. but the both have _ different electoral system. but the both have a debate about tax,, harris says she wants to redirect some of that to the startups and entrepreneurs, startu ps and entrepreneurs, people startups and entrepreneurs, people opening small businesses, she talked about child tax credit and health medicare — is that the way to tackle what trump wants to do and say, here's how we will redeploy the arsenal that we will seize back 2025?- will seize back 2025? trump won't be _ will seize back 2025? trump won't be talking _ will seize back 2025? trump won't be talking about - will seize back 2025? trump won't be talking about any l will seize back 2025? trump| won't be talking about any of that minutia, and that kind of a new show won't win over the small groups of people that still need to be one and some of this key battleground states a look at her across the line. at this stage of the election,

2016 and 2020, trump's opponent was further ahead, clinton and biden are both further ahead than harris is right now, she's closer trump then he was. and it could be likely that she can win the popular vote yet lose the electoral college, especially if there's any kind of doubt being sewn in terms of the vote and how valid it is. so if you're trying to win people over, that's all well and good if you're thinking about your vote and where it'll go in a calm and reasonable way. is that what's happening in america, at any point since donald trump went into politics? no! so you have to appeal on the emotional basis, and biden made a big thing about treating trump like he was a massive threat, asjoe says, to american democracy — and he was a bit further ahead than harris is in a poll, but it wasn't really working, it was in the way to go. the ullin: was in the way to go. the pulling in _ was in the way to go. the pulling in the _ was in the way to go. the pulling in the cnn - was in the way to go. the pulling in the cnn poll shows she still little bit soft with

black voters, she's behind where biden was in 2020 and also the latino support, joe. can i get your thoughts on this and politico, which really did grab my attention today? i want to get your thoughts on this comment today? jonathan martin in politico today says there is a growing number of people in the conservative movement who think "the best possible outcome in novemberfor the future of the republican party is for donald trump to lose and to lose soundly." "gop leaders won't tell you that on the record," he writes. "ijust did." is he right, that behind closed doors, there is a sliver of elected republicans who think a second trump term would take the party in the wrong direction? limit christian, i have to watch my language. that headline. _ watch my language. that headline, article - watch my language. that headline, article and - watch my language. thatl headline, article and story this— headline, article and story this morning made me sick. i had _ this morning made me sick. i had two — this morning made me sick. i had two thoughts — what cowards they are — had two thoughts — what cowards they are. privately, these republicans hope trump loses bil republicans hope trump loses big - _ republicans hope trump loses big — privately! forthose of us who— big — privately! forthose of us who publicly came out against _ us who publicly came out against trump, we no longer

have — against trump, we no longer have a — against trump, we no longer have a future in the republican party — have a future in the republican party. but _ have a future in the republican party. but they are also wrong. for six — party. but they are also wrong. for six years, my former colleagues in congress, republicans have been telling me that — republicans have been telling me that trump is like a tornado or a _ me that trump is like a tornado or a storm. _ me that trump is like a tornado or a storm, and me that trump is like a tornado ora storm, and it me that trump is like a tornado or a storm, and it will pass, then— or a storm, and it will pass, then we _ or a storm, and it will pass, then we will get back to the republican party we once had. bull clap! it's not coming back, _ bull clap! it's not coming back, this is a bigger problem than — back, this is a bigger problem than trump. this is where republican voters are — they are wrong. republican voters are - they are wrong-— republican voters are - they are wronu. . , ~' ~ are wrong. let that sink in. we will no are wrong. let that sink in. we will go to _ are wrong. let that sink in. we will go to a _ are wrong. let that sink in. we will go to a break, _ are wrong. let that sink in. we will go to a break, we'll- are wrong. let that sink in. we will go to a break, we'll talk i will go to a break, we'll talk plenty more politics on the other side of the break, do stay with us, we'll be right back.

hello there. look out for contrasting weather conditions across the country over the next few days. after having the wettest summer on record in scotland, the sunshine will come as a welcome surprise and it will turn increasingly humid. more cloud across eastern scotland and north—east england, but again, still quite warm. and then further south, we'll see a spell of heavy rain as an area of low pressure develops, and that front is going to lingerfor a few days at least. so, heavy rain across southern england and parts of south wales. you can see the first signs of that first thing on thursday morning. it's going to continue to drift its way steadily westwards and intensify. quite a lot of cloud spilling in off the north sea, but with lighter winds further north and west, here, we should get a little more sunshine. and in that shelter, temperatures will start to respond, so we could see highs perhaps on thursday afternoon of 22 degrees. now, let's take a look at what happens through thursday

evening, because that rain will intensify further. a spell of heavy rain moving its way across south—west england. that eases away, and then another pulse of wet weather is going to feed in towards the early hours of friday morning. don't forget — the brighter colours, the intensity of the rainfall. some areas could see as much as 80 to 100mm of rain before this low pressure pulls away. so another wet start across the south—west, with further areas of showery rain pushing into south—east england as well. an easterly wind will hopefully give a little more sunshine across eastern england, and more humidity and warmth to go with it, so temperatures potentially peaking at 25 degrees. we might see 25 in western scotland as well. into saturday, that area of low pressure potentiallyjust drifts that little bit further south, but still the risk of further heavy rain, sunny spells elsewhere, and again those temperatures into the mid 20s. but by the time we get into sunday, it looks likely that the low pressure will then

start to drift its way that little bit further north and east. so the midlands, parts of lincolnshire and perhaps east anglia could see more in the way of heavier rain. and cloudier conditions potentially further north as well, as the wind direction is now starting to change, so not quite as warm, not quite as humid. take care.

hello, i'm christian fraser. you're watching the context on bbc news. uk government is said to be stalling over the appointment of the next uk ambassador to the us. we take a look at why and who could be in the mix for thejob. couple of things to tell you before we press on. jack draper has just reached the semi of the us open. i'm only tell you that because my producer is australian and he beat australian! we are also focusing on that press conference in atlanta. it looks as if some people are approaching the microphone. felt like a team that will be responding to the press questions. in the meantime, as they are ready for that, we're

just going to talk about