crucially, too, this is not yet over. of the 12 gatherings the police are investigating, just four or so, we think, have led to fines so far, so there s plenty of potential for more to come, including for the prime minister. few can be certain what is around the corner and how much more serious it could get. chris mason, bbc news, at westminster. the government is withholding security advice on a peerage, on national security grounds. mps voted backin national security grounds. mps voted back in march to force the publication of secret documents, amid claims the secret service had raised concerns about the russian burn mogul. russian born. 0ur political correspondent helen catt nowjoins me from westminster. can you talk us through what is happening here? this can you talk us through what is happening here? can you talk us through what is happening here? this all relates to the conservative happening here? this all relates to the conservative peer, happening here? this all relat
in that situation? so do you agree with this decision? is this the right move, keeping the president out of ukraine? i used to i worked at the white house, i traveled the world with the president, i know the multiple layers of security that go with that. and so, you know, i would not want to be the secret service officer planning that trip. that said, this is a war of symbols and gestures as much as it is a war of steel. and one way or another, i would be advising the president to think about symbols and gestures that demonstrate our commitment and our support and our strength. so i won t go beyond that, because i do not want to be providing security advice to the president of the united states. i can imagine. that s the tradeoff. given the end of your statement, if the president were to go, could that also be viewed
services, which . and we know that concerns were raised, apparently, with the prime minister. in light of the revelations today, or a third of the revelations today, i think there are serious questions to answer from the prime minister. where did he know? and didi override security advice? i ve already suggested that there needs to be a process. to look into this appointment. the intelligence and security committee could, that s automatically a matter for them. but i think the laws appointment commission as well, i ve written to them to say, in the exceptional circumstances of this case where there is issues to the point where it brought the prime minister to the house of lords. will they release the information they re given? and will they review the appointment? because the more that the media probe into this, the more serious the river vacations it seems of the intelligence