we go through the end of the wheat. other parts of the uk. so how would an expected move by nhs england to reconfigure the targets for cancer care waiting times affect that? nhs england is taking a new tack on cancer waiting times. we'll be asking cancer research uk and labour's health minister in the welsh senedd whether this will bring radical improvement for patients on waiting lists, or is itjust a way of covering up failure? also tonight: more possible danger ahead for donald trump as his fourth indictment could be delivered this week, this time a state, not a federal charge, which a future president trump could not pardon. we'll be joined by a lawyer who tried to prosecute trump and one who worked to defend him. and on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the 0magh bomb, which took 33 lives and injured 200 more four months after the good friday agreement, why has justice never been served? we'll hear from voices across the communities in northern ireland. good evening. nhs waiting times have, in recent years, dominated the health agenda and provided regular political flashpoints. now nhs england is expected to change the way it measures cancer response times by rejigging the targets, many of which have been missed in recent years, from nine to three. among the three targets to be kept is a diagnosis within 28 days of referral. among those being dropped is the requirement to have a first consultant appointment within two weeks. the proposed changes are yet to be formally announced. but follow a year—long consultation. reports of their arrival comes as england's health secretary steve barclay went on the offensive on health issues this morning — some believe a sign of the government's desire to move the conversation on after its focus last week on the small boats. labour has been critical today of both the new cancer targets and of the government's record on the nhs more broadly. we'll discuss the implications of all of this for the nation's health and for politics in a moment. first, here's kate. the proportion of uk patients surviving cancer has improved over the last few decades. take lung cancer, the uk's biggest cancer killer. between 1995 and 2014, the five—year survival rate for the newly diagnosed increased by almost 8%. what the uk needs to be more worried about is that survival rates in other countries like denmark and australia, countries with broadly comparable healthcare access and expenditure, are still ahead. now, one thing we know is key to improving survival is early diagnosis and treatment. the five—year survival rates for breast cancer diagnosed at stage 1 and stage 4 can differ by 75%. england currently has nine targets for nhs trusts with the aim of speeding things up. most are not being met. take the target for suspected cancer patients to only wait two weeks between being referred and seeing a consultant. performance dropped below the dark line of the target around 2018, although during the pandemic years, there was another fall. and the target of 85% of patients only waiting two months from referral to treatment. that started to be missed a bit earlier around 2014. now it's about 60%. there have been proposals to change those targets for almost a decade now. last year, a clinically—led nhs review recommended they were cut down from nine targets to just three. a consultation on that proposal is due for a final government decision any day. some of this is merely simplification. take these three existing targets. they're almost identical. all essentially want patients to only wait two months between referral and treatment. the recommendation is to combine them into one target with the same ambition. the more controversial change is to remove a target for patients to see a specialist within two weeks, and replace it with the aim of patients only waiting a month to receive a diagnosis or be cleared. the reason for this shift is having a hospital appointment doesn't guarantee a quicker diagnosis. today, some patients can be sent directly to be tested, skipping the need for that first appointment. but with the target encouraging a hospital visit, nhs reports suggest some trusts arrange meetings but no tests to basically "stop the clock" on the target, while patients would still be waiting to know whether they had cancer. the proposed targets have been already trialled in 11 english trusts since 2019. by 2021, almost 79% of patients at the new target hospitals were getting a diagnosis within a month, compared to nearly 72% of patients in other hospitals, a seemingly slight improvement. 0verall, nhs england would not meet this proposed new month—long diagnosis target. it hit 75% only once in february this year. and we have to remember, when the independent cancer taskforce first recommended this change all the way back in 2015, it suggested a target of 95% right the way at the top there. getting there would take more than a target. well, changing the targets in themselves is unlikely to make a big difference to how patients experience the service, because one of the underlying problems in terms of the underlying problems in terms of how quickly patients are seen as just the gap between the number of people coming forward and being referred and the capacity of cancer services to see people, diagnose them, scan them, do tests and so on, and that gap has been growing over time. improving cancer survival is a wholesale challenge. targets, we should remember, merely set the goal. kate there. joining me now in the studio is director of evidence and implementation at cancer research uk naseer turabi, and from pembrokeshire, the welsh minister for health and social services eluned morgan. we did ask the government tojoin us, but no minister or conservative mp was made available. good evening both of you. eluned, first of all, labour has said the government is shifting the goalposts because they cannot meet the targets for cancer, but clinicians have been involved in this, and not only clinicians, the cancer task force has been behind these changes for eight years? we have modernised the way that we measure our targets, our lists in relation to cancer four years ago. we have a single measurement. 75% of our patients have to start their treatment within 62 days from suspicion, so it is one single cancer pathway, and again, that is something that was developed with clinicians, and also with those, in fact, who are interested in this particular area, that the key thing is, we have to remember what is in the interest of patients, and stopping the clock is not in their interest. they need things to be done, they need to know where they stand in relation to that one single pathway, and that's why we went for that particular approach in wales. but you make that approach in wales, but why is wes street in criticising the government for another streamlining approach? what is so good about is not so good about the in england? i good about is not so good about the in encland? ~ ., in england? i think the thing to remember _ in england? i think the thing to remember is _ in england? i think the thing to remember is that _ in england? i think the thing to remember is that simply - in england? i think the thing to i remember is that simply changing in england? i think the thing to - remember is that simply changing the targets doesn't mean you start meeting a different target. what is important is that additional resources go in, and we are all challenged in relation to the huge demand there is for cancer testing across the united kingdom, and the fact is, in order to find around 10% of people, you need to test 90% of people you know it won't have cancer in the end. let's turn to you, naseer turabi. does cancer research uk think the government is walking away from targets, or is it actually a good idea? ., . targets, or is it actually a good idea? . . , ., . ., targets, or is it actually a good idea? . . , ., , idea? cancer research uk are broadly su ortive idea? cancer research uk are broadly sunportive of — idea? cancer research uk are broadly sunportive of this _ idea? cancer research uk are broadly supportive of this change _ idea? cancer research uk are broadly supportive of this change in _ supportive of this change in targets _ supportive of this change in targets. we think it will make them more _ targets. we think it will make them more meaningful, but it comes against — more meaningful, but it comes against a — more meaningful, but it comes against a backdrop of missed targets, _ against a backdrop of missed targets, as your item said, since 2015. _ targets, as your item said, since 2015, the — targets, as your item said, since 2015, the fundamentals of delivering against _ 2015, the fundamentals of delivering against those targets are about care, _ against those targets are about care, not — against those targets are about care, not about the standards tell the targets themselves. so care, not about the standards tell the targets themselves.— the targets themselves. so does chanauin the targets themselves. so does changing the _ the targets themselves. so does changing the targets _ the targets themselves. so does changing the targets and - the targets themselves. so does - changing the targets and methodology change diagnosis and survival rates? i think survival rates is probably a bit hopeful, but it should change some _ bit hopeful, but it should change some of— bit hopeful, but it should change some of the incentives in hospitals to provide — some of the incentives in hospitals to provide more meaningful care, so as your— to provide more meaningful care, so as your item — to provide more meaningful care, so as your item suggested, just prioritising an appointment on its own is— prioritising an appointment on its own is not— prioritising an appointment on its own is not so important, but prioritising whether someone gets told whether or not they have cancer is. ~ ., ., ., ., is. eluned morgan, there are two thins is. eluned morgan, there are two things here- _ is. eluned morgan, there are two things here. you _ is. eluned morgan, there are two things here. you talked - is. eluned morgan, there are two things here. you talked about. is. eluned morgan, there are two - things here. you talked about having one target after diagnosis, but to get to that diagnosis, you need to see your gp first and foremost. isn't that the major problem? and it's notjust isn't that the major problem? and it's not just for wales. isn't that the major problem? and it's notjust for wales. the key thing is to get to see your gp, clear the backlog, but the trouble is, people can't get to see their gp. primary care isn't being prioritised.— gp. primary care isn't being rioritised. ~ . ., ., prioritised. what we have done in wales has changed _ prioritised. what we have done in wales has changed the _ prioritised. what we have done in wales has changed the gp - prioritised. what we have done in i wales has changed the gp contract. we have seen the akm bottleneck... so why are your waiting time is so long, then, if you are managing to get people to the gps quicklywhy are you waiting times and so long? if you waiting times and so long? if you look at our waiting times, the median in wales is 19 weeks, and the median in wales is 19 weeks, and the median in wales is 19 weeks, and the median in england is 1a weeks, so... so you are worse. haste median in england is 14 weeks, so... so you are worse.— so you are worse. we are not far behind england, _ so you are worse. we are not far behind england, but— so you are worse. we are not far behind england, but certainly - so you are worse. we are not far. behind england, but certainly what we do in wales is prioritise the most urgent cases, and also it is probably worth emphasising that we count differently. we include diagnostics and therapies in our waiting list, unlike in england. coming back to you, naseer, the amount of targets are changing down to three, but it is a reconfiguration rather than just chopping things are. but three weeks to see a consultant to form a weeks to see a consultant to form a weeks to get a result, whether that is a diagnosis are clear, surely that is better? this diagnosis are clear, surely that is better? �* , ., , better? as i said, we are very sunportive — better? as i said, we are very sunportive of _ better? as i said, we are very supportive of these _ better? as i said, we are very supportive of these changes, | better? as i said, we are very i supportive of these changes, but they don't— supportive of these changes, but they don't change the underlying resources — they don't change the underlying resources that are available to hospitals. 50 resources that are available to hositals. , ., resources that are available to hosnitais-_ resources that are available to hositals. i. ., . ., hospitals. so if you were to change the underlying _ hospitals. so if you were to change the underlying resources _ hospitals. so if you were to change j the underlying resources available, how would you final that in? realize how would you final that in? really this takes long _ how would you final that in? really this takes long term _ how would you final that in? really this takes long term planning - how would you final that in? really this takes long term planning to i this takes long term planning to stop you — this takes long term planning to stop you can't magic up highly skilled — stop you can't magic up highly skilled clinicians overnight, and what _ skilled clinicians overnight, and what we — skilled clinicians overnight, and what we really need is that long—term political leadership that will bring — long—term political leadership that will bring us the resources we need in the _ will bring us the resources we need in the nhs — will bring us the resources we need in the nhs. we mentioned those international comparisons earlier, and actually, the difference in those — and actually, the difference in those countries is that they do more diagnostics, — those countries is that they do more diagnostics, they cast the net wider. — diagnostics, they cast the net wider, and that is how you find canter— wider, and that is how you find cancer more easily. but it should be said, _ cancer more easily. but it should be said. with _ cancer more easily. but it should be said, with these targets, the same patients— said, with these targets, the same patients that are tracked today will be tracked once these new standards are in— be tracked once these new standards are in place. — be tracked once these new standards are in place, so it's really important for people at home to realise _ important for people at home to realise that. but important for people at home to realise that.— important for people at home to realise that. �* ., , ., ., ,., ., realise that. but do you also agree that art realise that. but do you also agree that part of — realise that. but do you also agree that part of the — realise that. but do you also agree that part of the problem _ realise that. but do you also agree that part of the problem is - realise that. but do you also agree that part of the problem is primary care? . , . . that part of the problem is primary care? ,, that part of the problem is primary care? . , ,, , care? primary care access has been under a lot — care? primary care access has been under a lot of— care? primary care access has been under a lot of strain, _ care? primary care access has been under a lot of strain, and _ care? primary care access has been under a lot of strain, and so - under a lot of strain, and so definiteiy— under a lot of strain, and so definitely there are pressures in primary— definitely there are pressures in primary care, absolutely.- primary care, absolutely. steve barcla , primary care, absolutely. steve barclay, eluned _ primary care, absolutely. steve barclay, eluned morgan, i primary care, absolutely. steve i barclay, eluned morgan, launched primary care, absolutely. (res barclay, eluned morgan, launched an attack on the nhs in scotland and wales today, saying that he could offer capacity because england's waiting times are shorter. isn't that a good offer? if it waiting times are shorter. isn't that a good offer?— that a good offer? if it was an offer that _ that a good offer? if it was an offer that was _ that a good offer? if it was an offer that was free, _ that a good offer? if it was an offer that was free, i - that a good offer? if it was an offer that was free, i would i offer that was free, i would certainly be taking up on it. maybe it will be free. _ certainly be taking up on it. maybe it will be free. sorry? _ certainly be taking up on it. maybe it will be free. sorry? maybe i certainly be taking up on it. maybe it will be free. sorry? maybe it i it will be free. sorry? maybe it will be free. _ it will be free. sorry? maybe it will be free. i _ it will be free. sorry? maybe it will be free. i would _ it will be free. sorry? maybe it will be free. i would be - it will be free. sorry? maybe it will be free. i would be very i will be free. i would be very surprised- _ will be free. i would be very surprised. if— will be free. i would be very surprised. if it _ will be free. i would be very surprised. if it is _ will be free. i would be very surprised. if it is free, i- will be free. i would be very surprised. if it is free, iwill| surprised. if it is free, i will take him up on the offer. but ijust wonder where he will find the capacity when he has 7.5 million people on his waiting list, and i'm sure a lot of those 7.5 million people will want to know how he is able to make that offer. the fact is, we are in a situation in wales where, if you look at, for example, the number of people who are treated from wales in england, we have always had a long established border arrangement, but it is quite interesting to know that 60% more english patients are registered with welsh gps than vice versa, and that number is increasing. thank you both very much indeed. it is likely that donald trump will be charged by the georgia state prosecutor this week, following investigations by the district attorney into accusations he demanded officials find votes to overturn his defeat in the state. a fourth such indictment piles on the pressure for the former president, not least as, unlike federal cases, a new president cannot pardon any outcome of a state case. today, in a seeming attempt to get his retaliation in first, trump took to his own social media platform to lambast the fulton county da fani willis, accusing her of trying to interfere with his re—election campaign and seeking to indict him on what he called "ridiculous grounds." david's here. david, what is the latest on this possible indictment? for donald trump, legal troubles, not as single spies, but in battalions, and boy, has he got some battalions, and boy, has he got some battalions he is facing right now. let's just remind ourselves of what is ranged against him. firstly, there is the capitol riot on the 2020 election, four charges there that could go to trial as early as january, then there is the classified documents case to be heard in florida, 40 federaljudges, and next may is the date set for that at the moment. then you have the falsifying business records case, 34 state charges in new york. march next year is when we expect that trial, at least at the moment, to start. and then to that, we at the georgia election interference. that is being heard at the moment by a grand jury that is being heard at the moment by a grandjury in that is being heard at the moment by a grand jury in georgia to decide whether to agree with the prosecutor there, fani willis, to post charges against donald trump. so there, fani willis, to post charges against donald trump.— there, fani willis, to post charges against donald trump. so we are in a situation where _ against donald trump. so we are in a situation where already _ against donald trump. so we are in a situation where already he _ against donald trump. so we are in a situation where already he is - situation where already he is racking up about 90 charges. tell us, in this case, if the indictment is ahead of us, what will the prosecution be going on? the fulton county district attorney began her investigation hearing, as we altered, an extraordinary telephone call injanuary we altered, an extraordinary telephone call in january 2021 between brad rafensberger, the georgia secretary of state, a republican, and donald trump, and donald trump was begging him to find him 12,000 votes to overturn the narrowest possible election result in georgia, wherejoe biden one. let's remind ourselves a little bit of what was a long conversation. i think we are in trouble reminding ourselves. ., ., ., i think we are in trouble reminding| ourselves._ he's ourselves. you have to find... he's ban to ourselves. you have to find... he's bang to rights _ ourselves. you have to find... he's bang to rights on _ ourselves. you have to find... he's bang to rights on the _ ourselves. you have to find... he's bang to rights on the phone. i ourselves. you have to find... he's bang to rights on the phone. that i bang to rights on the phone. that was the bang to rights on the phone. twat was the beginning of this. since then, two years that fani willis has spent putting together a case, 75 witnesses have been interviewed. tt witnesses have been interviewed. it has been huge. two things, first, what charges is he likely to face and what will the prosecution go on? at the moment we don't know. tantalisingly, a few hours ago, on the fulton county court website, a document was posted that was rapidly taken down and then, before it was, a screenshot was taken by a reporter. and it shows 13 different charges which will apparently be filed and the first is particularly interesting, violation of the georgia rico racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act. that is a piece of catchall legislation designed to catch drug kingpins or mafia bosses. designed to tie in the actions of people lower down the food chain if you like with the top boss at the top and that is a particularly interesting charge. and particularly interesting charge. and we will talk about that with our guest because that idea of picking off possible people around him is going to become very important if this does go to trial. but tell me the difference now is this is a state case, this is not a federal case and in a federal case, you can cancel it out. he case and in a federal case, you can cancel it out-— cancel it out. he can come as president. — cancel it out. he can come as president, he _ cancel it out. he can come as president, he could - cancel it out. he can come as president, he could give i cancel it out. he can come as i president, he could give himself a pardon. —— he can as president. in georgia, no clemency is possible without going before a parole board. either the state governor cannot pardon people and the parole board will only hear a case after a third of a sentence has been served if he was found guilty. bud of a sentence has been served if he was found guilty-— was found guilty. and there is a lona wa was found guilty. and there is a long way away- _ was found guilty. and there is a long way away. we _ was found guilty. and there is a long way away. we are - was found guilty. and there is a long way away. we are getting l was found guilty. and there is a i long way away. we are getting way ahead of ourselves. we don't know if he will run for president. and ahead of ourselves. we don't know if he will run for president.— he will run for president. and we don't know _ he will run for president. and we don't know when _ he will run for president. and we don't know when these _ he will run for president. and we don't know when these charges l he will run for president. and we i don't know when these charges will be filed, we think it might be tomorrow, but it could be as early as today so stay tuned.— as today so stay tuned. thank you very much. _ as today so stay tuned. thank you very much, david. _ i am nowjoined by andrew weissman, who is a united states attorney in a case against donald trump, and tim parlatore, who was an attorney for donald trump. good evening, both of you. tim parlatore, if and when this indictment comes, how problematic is it for donald trump?— it for donald trump? well, without readin: it, it for donald trump? well, without reading it. it— it for donald trump? well, without reading it, it is _ it for donald trump? well, without reading it, it is difficult _ it for donald trump? well, without reading it, it is difficult to - reading it, it is difficult to really know. one of the problem is that we have here is that fani willis is an elected democrat prosecutor so she is not really accountable to anybody except the voters. to keep her honest or to keep her in herjob. so that is something that is a risk. whenever you have a district where it is mostly one party, the prosecutors will pursue partisan and political indictments as opposed to pursuing justice. so the idea somebody above her is going to reign her in other than thejudge isjust her is going to reign her in other than the judge is just not going to happen. that being said, there are clearly problems in this case even before we see it. there are jurisdictional problems with this case because she is a county prosecutor and everything they are talking about goes well beyond what her power is in that position. 50 it her power is in that position. so if ou were her power is in that position. so if you were advising _ her power is in that position. so if you were advising him, _ her power is in that position. so if you were advising him, and we don't know the charges yet, but how would you conduct the defence, do you think? ~ , , think? well, the first thing they are auoin think? well, the first thing they are going to _ think? well, the first thing they are going to do _ think? well, the first thing they are going to do is _ think? well, the first thing they are going to do is remove i think? well, the first thing they are going to do is remove it i think? well, the first thing they are going to do is remove it to i are going to do is remove it to federal court. because all of these allegations have to do with things he did in his position of president of the united states. the statutes are pretty clear on this, they tried this in the new york case. but the new york charge a federaljudge clearly laid out wide that one doesn't apply. and yet, all of that reasoning perfectly fits stop so the first thing they will do is pull it to federal court. —— perfectly fits and so the first thing. let to federal court. -- perfectly fits and so the first thing.— to federal court. -- perfectly fits and so the first thing. let me pick u . and so the first thing. let me pick u- on and so the first thing. let me pick up on that. _ and so the first thing. let me pick up on that. tim — and so the first thing. let me pick up on that, tim parlatore - and so the first thing. let me pick up on that, tim parlatore says i and so the first thing. let me pick. up on that, tim parlatore says they will move it to federal court as if it is is as easy as that, but do you think it is as easy as that to move something to federal court, andrew weissman? ~ ., , something to federal court, andrew weissman? ~ . , weissman? well, as he correctly oints weissman? well, as he correctly points out. _ weissman? well, as he correctly points out, that _ weissman? well, as he correctly points out, that was _ weissman? well, as he correctly points out, that was something l points out, that was something donald — points out, that was something donald trump tried to do with the manhattan criminal case and it was rejected. _ manhattan criminal case and it was rejected. these are different backs. but i rejected. these are different backs. but i think— rejected. these are different backs. but i think there are arguments both sides and _ but i think there are arguments both sides and we will see what happens. just to— sides and we will see what happens. just to he _ sides and we will see what happens. just to be clear, if it does go to federal— just to be clear, if it does go to federal court, fani willis and her team _ federal court, fani willis and her team stays — federal court, fani willis and her team stays with the case. one of the biggest _ team stays with the case. one of the biggest changes is that in georgia, trials _ biggest changes is that in georgia, trials this— biggest changes is that in georgia, trials this would be public and not 'ust trials this would be public and not just public— trials this would be public and not just public like you can walk in and see it. _ just public like you can walk in and see it. but — just public like you can walk in and see it. but it— just public like you can walk in and see it, but it would be televised. which _ see it, but it would be televised. which i _ see it, but it would be televised. which i think would be a great asset to the _ which i think would be a great asset to the country to see the evidence and to— to the country to see the evidence and to hear— to the country to see the evidence and to hear the witnesses. in federal— and to hear the witnesses. in federal court, that is not the practice. _ federal court, that is not the practice. it would require the chief justice _ practice. it would require the chief justice of— practice. it would require the chief justice of the united states to make an exception for this case. so that would _ an exception for this case. so that would he — an exception for this case. so that would be one of the principal differences in terms of what goes on. it— differences in terms of what goes on. it wouldn't change the ability of the _ on. it wouldn't change the ability of the president of the united states— of the president of the united states in— of the president of the united states in terms of the point you've been _ states in terms of the point you've been making, which is even if it is in federal— been making, which is even if it is in federal court, the president of the united — in federal court, the president of the united states does not have the power _ the united states does not have the power to _ the united states does not have the power to pardon anybody for state crimes. _ power to pardon anybody for state crimes. and what is important about that is— crimes. and what is important about that is he _ crimes. and what is important about that is he couldn't pardon himself and he _ that is he couldn't pardon himself and he couldn't pardon any of his co—conspirators. so for instance, if people _ co—conspirators. so for instance, if people like — co—conspirators. so for instance, if people like rudy giuliani or mark meadows or other people who are less household _ meadows or other people who are less household names here are charged in state court. _ household names here are charged in state court, they cannot hope that a pardon _ state court, they cannot hope that a pardon gets them out of those charges. — pardon gets them out of those charges. they would have to just bite it _ charges. they would have to just bite it in — charges. they would have to just bite it in court and obviously, the state _ bite it in court and obviously, the state has — bite it in court and obviously, the state has the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt unanimously before a jury —— prove it in court. — unanimously before a jury —— prove it in court. that is correctly an issue — it in court. that is correctly an issue which— it in court. that is correctly an issue which is the da can be elected and he _ issue which is the da can be elected and be partisan, but whether that is the case _ and be partisan, but whether that is the case or— and be partisan, but whether that is the case or not, jury has to find somebody— the case or not, jury has to find somebody guilty beyond reasonable doubt. _ somebody guilty beyond reasonable doubt. tim somebody guilty beyond reasonable doubt. ., ., ., ., ., doubt. tim parlatore, would donald trump have — doubt. tim parlatore, would donald trump have a _ doubt. tim parlatore, would donald trump have a strong _ doubt. tim parlatore, would donald trump have a strong defence i doubt. tim parlatore, would donald trump have a strong defence he i doubt. tim parlatore, would donald| trump have a strong defence he was acting on the defence of his lawyers? t acting on the defence of his lawyers?— acting on the defence of his la ers? .,�* ~ ., ., lawyers? i don't know that the advice of council _ lawyers? i don't know that the advice of council defence i lawyers? i don't know that the | advice of council defence would really be applicable in this. and again, i don't know what the charges are. but to the extent that surrounds that phone call, i think they are going to have difficulty having jurisdiction there because one of the first things they will do in addition of moving it to federal courtjudge by the way, there is much bigger differences than simply cameras in the courtroom. in the federal court, thejury cameras in the courtroom. in the federal court, the jury pool will be a much broader geography. so you are notjust going to have fulton county jurors, butjurors from other different counties as well. you will also have differentjudges. but if you are talking about the power —— the focal itself, that is something where donald trump is sitting in washington, dc and brad raffensperger are sitting in the state house, so the fulton county district attorney has no jurisdiction there because it is in the state building, the state attorney general should be bringing that case. and looking at things in other counties, she is fulton county district attorney. a lot of these things, only the state attorney general can bring and unless there has been a specific delegation to her which my understanding is, there is not. let her which my understanding is, there is not. . r' her which my understanding is, there is not. ., i. her which my understanding is, there is not. ., , ., ., is not. let me ask you, there are a coule is not. let me ask you, there are a couple of — is not. let me ask you, there are a couple of things. — is not. let me ask you, there are a couple of things, andrew - is not. let me ask you, there are a l couple of things, andrew weissman, we were talking about the co—conspirators. what with the prosecution be trying to do to try to flip the co—conspirators? prosecution be trying to do to try to flip the co-conspirators? sure, well, we to flip the co-conspirators? sure, well. we don't — to flip the co-conspirators? sure, well, we don't know— to flip the co-conspirators? sure, well, we don't know yet _ to flip the co-conspirators? sure, well, we don't know yetjust i to flip the co-conspirators? sure, well, we don't know yetjust howl well, we don't know yetjust how many— well, we don't know yetjust how many witnesses the state has and the quality _ many witnesses the state has and the quality of _ many witnesses the state has and the quality of them. what we do glean is that they— quality of them. what we do glean is that they seem to be from allies and republicans who used to be loyal to donald _ republicans who used to be loyal to donald trump, but put the constitution, overthrowing the votes so that _ constitution, overthrowing the votes so that donald trump would win. but by bringing _ so that donald trump would win. but by bringing a case against co—conspirators, usually are hoping if co—conspirators, usually are hoping it they— co—conspirators, usually are hoping it they are — co—conspirators, usually are hoping if they are low level enough and if they are _ if they are low level enough and if they are admitting their own liability— they are admitting their own liability that they would become cooperating witnesses, that is a common— cooperating witnesses, that is a common practice in the united states to have _ common practice in the united states to have cooperating witnesses who admit _ to have cooperating witnesses who admit their liability and testify under— admit their liability and testify under oath as to their own crime and other— under oath as to their own crime and other participants in a crime. they obviously— other participants in a crime. they obviously are subject to cross—examination by skilled council like tim _ cross—examination by skilled council like tim parlatore and that is part of our— like tim parlatore and that is part of our due — like tim parlatore and that is part of our due process at the defence is entitled _ of our due process at the defence is entitled to — of our due process at the defence is entitled to and the jury weighs up their credibility. can entitled to and the “my weighs up their credibility.— their credibility. can i finish by askin: their credibility. can i finish by asking about _ their credibility. can i finish by asking about the _ their credibility. can i finish by asking about the framework i their credibility. can i finish by asking about the framework of their credibility. can i finish by i asking about the framework of this, tim parlatore? we were talking to david earlier that donald trump basis so many charges and he has also got subpoena powers so this could play out for a very long time. could this run coke currently, could he claim he couldn't properly be free to run for president —— coe concurrently. and that this was hampering democracy and so forth? tim parlatore.— tim parlatore. sorry. the audio was a little bit off. — tim parlatore. sorry. the audio was a little bit off. but _ tim parlatore. sorry. the audio was a little bit off. but these _ tim parlatore. sorry. the audio was a little bit off. but these cases i a little bit off. but these cases are complex. there is a lot of evidence to them. a lot of discovery. i don't see how any of these cases will feasibly be brought before the election. and also, the more you have them compounding on top of one another. one of the interesting things here with the georgia case is that presumably, it is going to duplicate a lot of the things in the jack smith pc indictment. so there, you will have the problem of, do they have inconsistent theories? —— dc. as fani willis going to indict co—conspirators that jack smith has already cut deals with as cooperators? there is definitely going to be issues where these two cases could collide.— cases could collide. thank you both ve much cases could collide. thank you both very much indeed _ cases could collide. thank you both very much indeed and _ cases could collide. thank you both very much indeed and we _ cases could collide. thank you both very much indeed and we may i cases could collide. thank you both very much indeed and we may get. cases could collide. thank you both i very much indeed and we may get news of this in the coming hours. 25 years ago tomorrow — four months after the good friday agreement — the 0magh bomb exploded, killing 29 people, including a woman pregnant with twins. it brought condemnation from most sections of northern ireland, who had hoped the violence was over. arrests and trials, criminal and civil, have come and gone, and convictions overturned. as it stands today, no—one has been convicted of the atrocity. in 2013, the then northern ireland secretary theresa villiers said she had decided not to hold a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the 0magh bombing, that she didn't believe there were sufficient grounds beyond what had gone before. but earlier this year, the government announced there would be an independent statutory inquiry, chaired by lord turnbull. tomorrow's anniversary comes amidst the fall—out from last week's psni data leak, with concerns over the safety of police officers and staff from potential dissident attack — a reminder of the fragile peace in northern ireland. in a moment, we'll discuss with today's generation of political and public figures what happens next. but first, a reminder of the 0magh bomb. the single worst atrocity in even northern ireland's bloody modern history... a massive car bomb in northern ireland has killed more than 20 people, including children. it exploded in a busy shopping street in 0magh, county tyrone. it was carnival day, more relaxed than usual, because northern ireland had hoped that terrorist violence was a thing of the past. the terrorists gave a warning. they said the bomb had been placed in a car outside the courthouse at the far end of the main street. police were given some 40 minutes to clear the area. they shepherded hundreds of people to the far end of the main street, and that was where the bomb went off. people who thought they'd reached safety took the full impact of the blast. the scores of injured, many of them horribly mutilated, overwhelmed the local hospital. some of those who did not die in the town centre were beyond help when they arrived in hospital. they died while they were being treated. men, women and children, catholic, protestant, totally indiscriminate, bloody murder. this is the worst that i've seen of all similar atrocities. it seems the intention was to try to wreck the hopes of peace which arose from the political agreement. we will not let these i people wreck the future. the future belongs to the - decent people of northern ireland. it does not belong to _ the criminals and the psychopaths. i remember only too well feeling deeply angered when my great—uncle lord mountbatten and other relations of mine were blown into small pieces 19 years ago. among the dead, three generations of one family. a grandmother, her pregnant daughter and 18—month—old baby. three boys between eight and 12 from donegal were killed, and a 24—year—old woman and a 12—year—old boy from madrid. dozens kept vigil all night at the local leisure centre to find out whether family and friends had survived. we've just found out that our good friend's daughter has died. the names in the leisure centre where it was coordinated - were getting shorter and shorter, and you just had that inevitability| that was starting to set in i that you didn't want to believe, you know, that the worst was coming. feelings as such that the republican dissidents have succeeded in making enemies of virtually the entire nationalist community. it has struck people in ways that former tragedies have not. the republican leadership have been in 0magh doing something they've always rejected in the past as the politics of condemnation. this action was wrong, i totally and absolutely wrong. to call upon whoever was involved to admit responsibility _ for their involvement, - and to cease these actions. the terrorist splinter group the real ira say they planted the 0magh bomb. even with 28 dead and more than 100 injured, they now say they didn't mean to kill civilians. a pathetic attempt at an excuse for mass murder. what i want to hear now from . that group is another statement stating that they intend to stop their activities, | and to respond to the very clear mood that there - is within all of our people i all over this island, that is, to give the peace process a chance. if people have information that would lead to the arrest of these people, surely, because you are so this atrocity, of these people, surely, because you utterly condemn this atrocity, you would want them to bring their information to you so you could pass it on? well, i'm not an informer. towns and cities across the north of ireland came to a halt at 3.10 this afternoon, exactly a week after the bomb exploded in 0magh and killed 28 people. in their thousands came, the politicians, the church leaders, and above all, the people of 0magh. in this hospital in belfast, where the injured are still recovering, and everywhere else, ireland came to a standstill. now, to discuss this further, i'm joined by baroness nuala o'loan, former police ombudsman for northern ireland and author of a critical 2001 report into police handling of the bombing, by emma little—pengelly, dup mla for lagan valley, and by daniel mccrossan, sdlp mla for west tyrone. thank you all very much forjoining us. first of all, daniel mccrossan, how would you sum up what 0magh did to northern ireland and how it still affects people in northern ireland? well, tomorrow at 3:10pm, it will be 25 years since that dark and difficult day, a day that ripples through the hearts of the people of 0magh, which destroyed an entire community and destroyed families, shattered dreams, still people's lives and their futures. and for 25 years, families have worked every single day to search and seek out the truth, and to get some justice for loved ones who they lost on that terrible day. and for so many hundreds of people who were injured, yesterday, even though it was 25 years later, you could still feel the pain, the emotion, the frustration, anger in the air. it was a beautiful service, it was a lovely tribute in memory of all those who suffered and lost their lives on that terrible day, but people felt it yesterday, and i was speaking to michael gallagher, father of aidan gallagher who died in the bomb, and stanley mccool who lost his wife, and both of them said to me, it feels like yesterday, and we still feel that pain. and emma little—pengelly, from your point of view as well, there is no resolution, because nobody is convicted, fully convicted of this atrocity? convicted, fully convicted of this atroci ? . �* , ~ convicted, fully convicted of this atroci ? . �*, ~ atrocity? that's right, unlike so man of atrocity? that's right, unlike so many of the — atrocity? that's right, unlike so many of the terrible _ atrocity? that's right, unlike so many of the terrible atrocities l many of the terrible atrocities throughout the troubles in northern ireland, _ throughout the troubles in northern ireland, nobody has been brought to justice _ ireland, nobody has been brought to justice. some of those who have been brought— justice. some of those who have been brought to _ justice. some of those who have been brought tojustice, of justice. some of those who have been brought to justice, of course, were released _ brought to justice, of course, were released early from prison, but many families_ released early from prison, but many families never got their day in court. — families never got their day in court, never saw the person responsible for their murder or maiming — responsible for their murder or maiming of their loved one brought to maiming of their loved one brought toiustice, — maiming of their loved one brought tojustice, and i know it creates a huge _ tojustice, and i know it creates a huge amount of hurt. it means many people _ huge amount of hurt. it means many people haven't got any aspect of closure, — people haven't got any aspect of closure, not that anyone can forget, of course, _ closure, not that anyone can forget, of course, or— closure, not that anyone can forget, of course, or get over this huge, traumatic— of course, or get over this huge, traumatic loss such as what happened in 0magh _ traumatic loss such as what happened in 0magh. 0ur traumatic loss such as what happened in 0magh. our thoughts over this anniversary— in 0magh. our thoughts over this anniversary are very much with the families_ anniversary are very much with the families and those from the town, but of— families and those from the town, but of course, as you have mentioned, right across northern ireland, _ mentioned, right across northern ireland, this was... the scale of this_ ireland, this was... the scale of this atrocity _ ireland, this was... the scale of this atrocity really hit very, very hard _ this atrocity really hit very, very hard in — this atrocity really hit very, very hard in every town and village and city across — hard in every town and village and city across the province. and baroness — city across the province. and baroness nuala _ city across the province. fific baroness nuala 0'loan, i know you are critical of the actions of the police before and since, but can i just ask one thing? there isn't actually an active police investigation still going on. they will never say the case is closed, but there isn't actually an active police investigation into something that was a massive crime. that police investigation into something that was a massive crime.- that was a massive crime. that is correct, that was a massive crime. that is correct. there _ that was a massive crime. that is correct, there isn't. _ that was a massive crime. that is correct, there isn't. i— that was a massive crime. that is correct, there isn't. i mean, - that was a massive crime. that is correct, there isn't. i mean, the. correct, there isn't. i mean, the initiat— correct, there isn't. i mean, the initial police _ correct, there isn't. i mean, the initial police investigation - correct, there isn't. i mean, the initial police investigation was . initial police investigation was gravely— initial police investigation was gravely flawed. _ initial police investigation was gravely flawed. there - initial police investigation was gravely flawed. there were i gravely flawed. there were subsequent _ gravely flawed. there were subsequent attempts - gravely flawed. there were subsequent attempts to i gravely flawed. there were - subsequent attempts to investigate, but you _ subsequent attempts to investigate, but you lose — subsequent attempts to investigate, but you lose a — subsequent attempts to investigate, but you lose a lot _ subsequent attempts to investigate, but you lose a lot in _ subsequent attempts to investigate, but you lose a lot in the _ subsequent attempts to investigate, but you lose a lot in the early- but you lose a lot in the early days, — but you lose a lot in the early days, and _ but you lose a lot in the early days. and a _ but you lose a lot in the early days, and a lot _ but you lose a lot in the early days, and a lot of _ but you lose a lot in the early| days, and a lot of information but you lose a lot in the early- days, and a lot of information was not made — days, and a lot of information was not made available, _ days, and a lot of information was not made available, and - days, and a lot of information was not made available, and perhaps. days, and a lot of information was i not made available, and perhaps the most critical — not made available, and perhaps the most critical thing _ not made available, and perhaps the most critical thing was _ not made available, and perhaps the most critical thing was that - not made available, and perhaps the most critical thing was that there - most critical thing was that there was arr— most critical thing was that there was an anonymous _ most critical thing was that there was an anonymous warning - most critical thing was that there was an anonymous warning on i most critical thing was that there i was an anonymous warning on the 4th of august— was an anonymous warning on the 4th of august that — was an anonymous warning on the 4th of august that there _ was an anonymous warning on the 4th of august that there would _ was an anonymous warning on the 4th of august that there would be - was an anonymous warning on the 4th of august that there would be an - of august that there would be an attack— of august that there would be an attack on — of august that there would be an attack on police _ of august that there would be an attack on police in _ of august that there would be an attack on police in 0magh - of august that there would be an attack on police in 0magh on- of august that there would be an attack on police in 0magh on the 15th of— attack on police in 0magh on the 15th of august. _ attack on police in 0magh on the 15th of august, and _ attack on police in 0magh on the 15th of august, and that - attack on police in 0magh on the 15th of august, and that was - attack on police in 0magh on the 15th of august, and that was not| 15th of august, and that was not taken _ 15th of august, and that was not taken into— 15th of august, and that was not taken into account, _ 15th of august, and that was not taken into account, not - 15th of august, and that was not taken into account, not shared i 15th of august, and that was not. taken into account, not shared with the commander _ taken into account, not shared with the commander. he _ taken into account, not shared with the commander. he could - taken into account, not shared with the commander. he could have - taken into account, not shared with l the commander. he could have taken action, _ the commander. he could have taken action, put— the commander. he could have taken action, put a— the commander. he could have taken action, put a roadblock— the commander. he could have taken action, put a roadblock around - the commander. he could have taken action, put a roadblock around the i action, put a roadblock around the town— action, put a roadblock around the town to _ action, put a roadblock around the town to stop— action, put a roadblock around the town to stop a _ action, put a roadblock around the town to stop a bomb _ action, put a roadblock around the town to stop a bomb coming - action, put a roadblock around the town to stop a bomb coming in, l action, put a roadblock around the town to stop a bomb coming in, if| action, put a roadblock around the . town to stop a bomb coming in, if he had known _ town to stop a bomb coming in, if he had know so— town to stop a bomb coming in, if he had known. so all— town to stop a bomb coming in, if he had known. so all of— town to stop a bomb coming in, if he had known. so all of those _ town to stop a bomb coming in, if he had known. so all of those failings, i had known. so all of those failings, and that— had known. so all of those failings, and that has— had known. so all of those failings, and that has continued _ had known. so all of those failings, and that has continued for- had known. so all of those failings, and that has continued for 25- had known. so all of those failings, | and that has continued for 25 years. and i_ and that has continued for 25 years. and i think— and that has continued for 25 years. and i think it— and that has continued for 25 years. and i think it is— and that has continued for 25 years. and i think it is a — and that has continued for 25 years. and i think it is a tribute _ and that has continued for 25 years. and i think it is a tribute to - and that has continued for 25 years. and i think it is a tribute to the - and i think it is a tribute to the 0magh— and i think it is a tribute to the 0n1aghtanrily— and i think it is a tribute to the 0magh family is _ and i think it is a tribute to the 0magh family is that _ and i think it is a tribute to the 0magh family is that the - and i think it is a tribute to the - 0magh family is that the government have now— 0magh family is that the government have now announced _ 0magh family is that the government have now announced they _ 0magh family is that the government have now announced they will - 0magh family is that the government have now announced they will be - 0magh family is that the government have now announced they will be a i have now announced they will be a public _ have now announced they will be a public inquiry — have now announced they will be a public inquiry into— have now announced they will be a public inquiry into the _ have now announced they will be a public inquiry into the 0magh - public inquiry into the 0magh bombing _ public inquiry into the 0magh bombing to— public inquiry into the 0magh bombing to find _ public inquiry into the 0magh bombing to find out - public inquiry into the 0magh| bombing to find out effectively whether— bombing to find out effectively whether it _ bombing to find out effectively whether it could _ bombing to find out effectively whether it could have - bombing to find out effectively whether it could have been - whether it could have been disrupted. _ whether it could have been disrupted, and _ whether it could have been disrupted, and how- whether it could have been disrupted, and how the - whether it could have been - disrupted, and how the intelligence was handled. — disrupted, and how the intelligence was handled, and _ disrupted, and how the intelligence was handled, and how— disrupted, and how the intelligence was handled, and how things- disrupted, and how the intelligence was handled, and how things like . was handled, and how things like phone _ was handled, and how things like phone analysis _ was handled, and how things like phone analysis was _ was handled, and how things like phone analysis was handled, - was handled, and how things like - phone analysis was handled, because we know— phone analysis was handled, because we know that — phone analysis was handled, because we know that mi5 _ phone analysis was handled, because we know that mi5 and _ phone analysis was handled, because we know that mi5 and the _ phone analysis was handled, because we know that mi5 and the police - phone analysis was handled, because we know that mi5 and the police and i we know that mi5 and the police and special— we know that mi5 and the police and special branch — we know that mi5 and the police and special branch were _ we know that mi5 and the police and special branch were involved - we know that mi5 and the police and special branch were involved in - we know that mi5 and the police and special branch were involved in lots| special branch were involved in lots of intelligence — special branch were involved in lots of intelligence work, _ special branch were involved in lots of intelligence work, because - special branch were involved in lots of intelligence work, because there | of intelligence work, because there were seven — of intelligence work, because there were seven bombs _ of intelligence work, because there were seven bombs before - of intelligence work, because there were seven bombs before the - of intelligence work, because there . were seven bombs before the 0magh bomb— were seven bombs before the 0magh bomb exploded — were seven bombs before the 0magh bomb exploded or— were seven bombs before the 0magh bomb exploded or planted _ were seven bombs before the 0magh bomb exploded or planted by- were seven bombs before the 0magh bomb exploded or planted by that - bomb exploded or planted by that same _ bomb exploded or planted by that same group — bomb exploded or planted by that same group of— bomb exploded or planted by that same group of ira _ bomb exploded or planted by that same group of ira men, - bomb exploded or planted by that same group of ira men, and - bomb exploded or planted by that same group of ira men, and one| same group of ira men, and one individual— same group of ira men, and one individual was _ same group of ira men, and one individual was linked _ same group of ira men, and one individual was linked to - same group of ira men, and one individual was linked to three - same group of ira men, and one individual was linked to three ofl individual was linked to three of those _ individual was linked to three of those bombs, _ individual was linked to three of those bombs, and _ individual was linked to three of those bombs, and he _ individual was linked to three of those bombs, and he was - individual was linked to three ofl those bombs, and he was named individual was linked to three of - those bombs, and he was named on the 4th of— those bombs, and he was named on the 4th of august _ those bombs, and he was named on the 4th of august as — those bombs, and he was named on the 4th of august as possibly _ those bombs, and he was named on the 4th of august as possibly being - 4th of august as possibly being involved — 4th of august as possibly being involved in— 4th of august as possibly being involved in an _ 4th of august as possibly being involved in an attack _ 4th of august as possibly being involved in an attack on - 4th of august as possibly being involved in an attack on police, j 4th of august as possibly being - involved in an attack on police, and the 0magh— involved in an attack on police, and the 0magh families _ involved in an attack on police, and the 0magh families have _ involved in an attack on police, and the 0magh families have fought. involved in an attack on police, and j the 0magh families have fought for 25 years _ the 0magh families have fought for 25 years to— the 0magh families have fought for 25 years to get _ the 0magh families have fought for 25 years to get this _ the 0magh families have fought for 25 years to get this public - the 0magh families have fought for 25 years to get this public inquiry, i 25 years to get this public inquiry, and they— 25 years to get this public inquiry, and they are — 25 years to get this public inquiry, and they are very— 25 years to get this public inquiry, and they are very pleased - 25 years to get this public inquiry, and they are very pleased that - 25 years to get this public inquiry, i and they are very pleased that they finally _ and they are very pleased that they finally have — and they are very pleased that they finally have it _ finally have it. i interviewed i finally have it. - i interviewed martin finauy have it. — i interviewed martin mcguinness in the aftermath. we just saw a clip there. when i asked him if people should come and talk to him and what he pass on the information, he said, daniel, i am he pass on the information, he said, daniel, lam not he pass on the information, he said, daniel, i am not an informer. with that kind of ingrained attitude, how do you get the co—operation that you need for an inquiry? it is do you get the co-operation that you need for an inquiry?— need for an inquiry? it is so vitally important _ need for an inquiry? it is so vitally important that - need for an inquiry? it is so vitally important that we i need for an inquiry? it is so j vitally important that we do need for an inquiry? it is so - vitally important that we do get that cooperation, and as baroness nuala 0'loan has so rightly said, the 0magh families have waited for this inquiry which has now been announced, but it was not announced by the british government, it had been forced by the 0magh families. just as the current was very clear in the conclusion of his case brought forward that the families, it may have been the case that the 0magh bomb could have been prevented, and that all comes down to what baroness 0'loan has just said, and many other things. the 0magh families have been seeking out the truth, and have not waited for politicians, they have not waited for governments. they have pursued it because they want the truth and justice for their loved ones and for the people that suffered on that terrible day in 0magh. sinn fein and the ira back then... there is quite a lot of unanswered questions. it took a lot for sinn fein to condemn those acts, and i would argue that they were dragged to condemn the 0magh bomb at that point, but they did so and have since. we have to look beyond that and seek out whatever process necessary to get to the truth, and the best way of doing that right now is by co—operating with this public inquiry by the british government, but not in isolation. we require the irish government, the taoiseach and the tainiste, and the previous taoiseach have said they will wait for the terms from the british covenant, which they have i believe now in draft form, and with cooperation across the british and irish, i believe it will be able to fit in the missing pieces of this. sinn fein would not take part like a mother said in a statement to newsnight: the 0magh families need the full truth now. from your point of view, emma little—pengelly, what does getting the full truth mean, and who can help to provide that truth? are you convinced you will have full cooperation across northern ireland came? i have full cooperation across northern ireland came? i think it is incredibly important _ northern ireland came? i think it is incredibly important to _ northern ireland came? i think it is incredibly important to outline - northern ireland came? i think it is| incredibly important to outline from the outset — incredibly important to outline from the outset that the fault lies fundamentally with the cowardly republican terrorists that carried out this— republican terrorists that carried out this atrocity, and, of course, like the — out this atrocity, and, of course, like the manchester arena investigation, there are questions to be _ investigation, there are questions to be answered, as laid out by the court. _ to be answered, as laid out by the court. as— to be answered, as laid out by the court. as the — to be answered, as laid out by the court, as the secretary of state has acknowledged, about what knowledge there was _ acknowledged, about what knowledge there was of this, and of course, there was of this, and of course, the families _ there was of this, and of course, the families deserve that justice, notiusti — the families deserve that justice, notjust, of course, the 0magh families, — notjust, of course, the 0magh families, but the many victims and survivors— families, but the many victims and survivors across northern ireland who were — survivors across northern ireland who were victims of paramilitary violence and bombs, regardless of who carried those out, from where those _ who carried those out, from where those were — who carried those out, from where those were carried out. thousands and thousands of those people have never _ and thousands of those people have never had _ and thousands of those people have never had justice, and it would be remiss _ never had justice, and it would be remiss of— never had justice, and it would be remiss of me not to highlight the legacy— remiss of me not to highlight the legacy bill being brought forward by this united kingdom government that will extinguish the opportunity for justice _ will extinguish the opportunity for justice for— will extinguish the opportunity for justice for all of those many, many thousands— justice for all of those many, many thousands of people. absolutely, but that does not... not for this, absolutely, but that does not... not forthis, not absolutely, but that does not... not for this, not for this, and nuala 0'loan, forthis, not forthis, and nuala 0'loan, i for this, not for this, and nuala 0'loan, i wonder, just, do you want to see a cross—border cooperation? you were talking about that earlier, and if there is truth found in this inquiry, surely that can't be the end? i inquiry, surely that can't be the end? ~ , inquiry, surely that can't be the end? from _ gibson did, to the trial, the papers from the _ gibson did, to the trial, the papers from the trial— gibson did, to the trial, the papers from the trial in _ gibson did, to the trial, the papers from the trial in belfast _ gibson did, to the trial, the papers from the trial in belfast in- gibson did, to the trial, the papers from the trial in belfast in which i from the trial in belfast in which two men — from the trial in belfast in which two men were _