26/11/2015 Newsnight

and we're devoting our programme tonight to it.

The debate over military action in Syria.

We have to hit these terrorists in their heartland right now.

The Prime Minister set out the case for war.

The Commons also heard the case against.

Enemies to the right of of us, enemies to the left of it!

We'll hear from those who've recently fled

Islamic State's hub, the city of Raqqa.

And we'll ask, will military action work?

There's talk of meltdown in the Labour Party over the issue.

Diane Abbott will be with us to set out her view.

And we meet this family escaping Syria to come to Scotland.

Syria is enduring a civil war that has now run longer than World War I.

The country had a population of 22 million before it started.

It's now reported to be down to 16.5 million.

Seven million of those who remain are internally displaced.

more than a quarter of a million people.

It was complicated enough before last year,

when the self-styled Islamic State declared a caliphate

and overran territory that covered much of Syria and Iraq,

but there are now clearly bad guys on both sides of the conflict.

And the issue is whether Britain should get more involved

in the fight against one of them in Syria - Isil.

The Prime Minister set out why we should,

and MPs had the chance to raise their concerns,

We'll take the time to set out the key issues,

but let's start by hearing from Allegra Stratton

It is a caution, but today, whether or not

numbers. The concerns of MPs caution, but today, whether or not

the Prime Minister to the house with a 7-point response. There

the Prime Minister to the house with 7 points back from Jeremy Corbyn,

five points from 7 points back from Jeremy Corbyn,

number, the 324 MPs needed to win a vote in Parliament. Statement, the

Prime Minister! The Prime Minister set out his strategy, the seven

points addressed in turn, why, why ask, why now, the legal basis,

allies on the ground, overall strategy, and the end goal. Gogol

allies on the ground, overall do face a fundamental threat to our

security, we have to hit the securities in

security, we have to hit the now. And we must not shirk our

responsibility for security or hand it to others. Mr Speaker, throughout

our history the United Kingdom has stood up to defend our values and

our way of life. We can and we must do so again. Jeremy Corbyn had his

seven questions. He later wrote to MPs opposing action, but in the

chamber his reluctance was on show. The question must now be when

extending the UK bombing from Iraq to Syria is likely to reduce or

increase that thread. And whether it will counter or spread the terror

campaign Isil is waging in the Middle East. But this man is

something of a weather vane - the chair of the committee that said the

Prime Minister the seven tests, he said this. It is now my personal

view that, on balance, the country would be best served by this house

supporting his judgment that the United Kingdom should play a full

role in the coalition. But what are the numbers? Two, the UN resolution

which many think authorises action, including some sitting behind Jeremy

Corbyn, at odds with their leader. Candy confirmed that it does not

just permit all necessary steps to be taking? -- can he confirm. But it

actually calls upon member states to take all necessary steps. 70,000 is

the number of moderate Syrian opposition troops the Prime Minister

said would do the heavy lifting. Many doubted this number. The

suggestion that there are 70,000 none Islamist moderate, credible

ground forces, I have to say, is a revelation to me, and I suspect most

other members in this house. The Prime Minister has talked about

70,000 Free Syrian Army troops, how many of those are in the north-east

of Syria on the front line against Syrian regime forces? And the fate

of one man, President Assad. As in 2013, any idea of his removal is

highly contentious. Any agreement will have to involve unpleasant

people being involved, and not just people who would naturally be our

allies, and Assad and other people may have 2 be involved. How will he

avoid giving support or appearing to give support to Assad forces and

becoming dependent on Assad forces, and how will he avoid that giving

succour to Isil in its recruitment in the region? This is a really

unusual parliamentary moment. The Prime Minister told us today he will

only bring a vote if he thinks he will win it. That takes a lot of the

jeopardy out of the vote, he will only bring a vote to this place if

he is said and he will not lose. So can he get to that 324 majority?

Well, if you imagine there is about 15 Tory rebels, they are cancelled

out by 15 Labour rebels coming over to support the Prime Minister. Add

in the DUP and top up that number with a few more Labour supporters,

and the Prime Minister this evening probably does have his numbers.

Let's pick up on some of those themes, Allegra is with me.

The debate is clearly within as well as across parties,

which brings us to what can only be called turmoil

Diggers through what happened today. There was a meeting of the Shadow

Cabinet. We expect that Jeremy Corbyn and the Shadow Chancellor

will decide they cannot vote. It is, but we understand from this meeting

that the majority of the people who spoke did so in favour of strikes,

so far so simple, except for the fact that also suggested was the

idea that there want there to be an absolute whipped vote in favour of

strikes. In favour of strikes, as opposed to what you have heard about

so far, a whip to vote against strikes. They were really pushing

it. My understanding is, firstly, as you suggest, this would be

extraordinary, because we think this would be the first time in recent

memory that you have got a leader and his Shadow Chancellor boating to

defy a whip, so why would they say that? -- voting macro. There is

electable and it, the view that you cannot be the opposition and have

heard everything and not doing anything about it. There is the

principle of it, people like Vernon Coaker, who just believe it. And

then there are those were fed up with Jeremy Corbyn, it is understood

that Tom Watson, the deputy leader, who would be right there in the

middle. Critically, in terms of this question about a whipped vote,

personally I do not think it is a goer. They have until Monday to

decide, but I think it is a negotiating position, they really

want a free vote, and if they push for the whipped vote, the compromise

is something in the middle. Well, the Shadow International

Development Secretary, Diane Abbott, is here with me to discuss

Labour's position on Syria, but before we do, Jo Cox,

another Labour MP, who actually spoke out

in support of intervention in the Commons today,

joins us via Skype. Just take us through your position

on this as of now, Jo. Thanks, just to clarify, I am as yet and decided,

but I thought today was an important step forward with the Prime

Minister. -- undecided. The Prime Minister presented a compelling case

of the threat that Isis bases as in Britain. It is three years to late,

it should not have taken a humanitarian crisis of this scale

for the attacks in Paris to do that, but I welcome the fact that he had a

comprehensive strategy today. My outstanding concerns relate to just

how much emphasis the Government will give to dealing with the

brutality of Assad, which cannot be separated from any strategy to

tackle the horror of Isis. If you come to the view that we should get

involved, we should bomb, would you see that as the kind of you that you

would divide a party whip on if that was necessary? I think this has to

be a matter of conscience for all MPs, and speaking to many colleagues

on all sides of the house today, I think many share that view. Yeah, I

think all of us have to think first and foremost about how do we keep

Britain safe, but secondly how do we ensure that we protect Syrians who,

of course, are suffering untold horrors as we speak, and this crisis

and our strategy has to be about a political transition in Syria that

ultimately ends the conflict. Very briefly, it may be, I don't know,

but in your constituency, your local members responsible for running your

local party, they may take a different view and come to a

different conclusion to you. Do you see it as important to listen to

them autistic to your own view? I mean, I have been talking to party

members about this issue for many, many months, and there is a

divergent views among party members, as amongst the public. I

feel that it is my responsibility to listen to that diversity of views,

but ultimately take a view as to what I think we'll keep Britain safe

from the threat of Isis. Thank you very much indeed. Diane Abbott,

should Jo Cox vote with her conscience on this issue? I think

what we should all do is look at what will make British people safe,

first and foremost, as parliamentarians, that must be our

concern, but on the Shadow Cabinet today, which I was actually at! I

think it was a bit more balanced than the people who came out and

briefed Allegra. We agree that we have to vote to keep Britain safe,

we have to go back to our constituencies, talk to friends,

families and party members. We have agreed to speak to constituents,

friends, families and party members and come back on Monday and take a

decision. But this notion of the Shadow Cabinet as some kind of

workers' collective, which can decide the whipping, I have been in

Parliament for 28 years, I have never heard that, that would be an

innovation! Who decides which way it is whipped? You know as well as I

do, the leader consults with colleagues and the whips' office,

very important, but it is the leader, so how is the Shadow Cabinet

going to decide that?! Does everybody agree on that? As far as I

know, there is no president macro for the Shadow Cabinet trying to

throw down their leader. -- precedent. The YouGov polls show

that 70% of party members are against bombing. But it shows that

59% of the public are in favour, so which should members listen to,

membership of the party or the public out there? The point I am

making is that there has been a lot of talk of split in the party, but

the party members and Jeremy are united, the issue is with MPs. But

aren't MPs responsible to voters? We are all responsible to the

electorate, we all have a responsibility, as I said at the

beginning, to keep the British people safe. I disagree with Jo, I

do not think David Cameron has made the case. Who are the ground forces

supposed to be? The real danger, and I do not think there is public

support for this, as we will get drawn into a land war in Syria.

There will have to be a free vote, won't there? Is it possible that the

leader of the party can vote a different way to the foreign

spokesman of the party, Hilary Benn, on an issue of going to war, and for

both of them to stay in their posts? Many people will think it is not

conceivable, Hilary Benn and Jeremy Corbyn to be imposed and vote on

different sides on this. Many people think it is not conceivable that the

Shadow Cabinet can decide the whipping. We will come together on

Monday and arrive at a unified position in the interests of the

British people. Jeremy Corbyn said today, we are going to come back on

Monday, have a discussion and come to a collective view, but the view I

have, and I will only accept, is that I will not vote for military

action. That is not very polite, is it? He is showing leadership, making

his position clear. When the Shadow Cabinet members said, what a

surprise, no, he said it at the beginning of the meeting. You said

earlier that this is a very unusual situation, I have been here two

times before, when the drums of war are beating

times before, when the drums of war there seems to be this irresistible

pressure for British intervention. I have been here before, I never

thought I would be here for a third time of asking. I do not believe

that bombing without a time of asking. I do not believe

diplomatic strategy, without troops on the ground will actually cut of

the head of the snake that is Isis and bring peace to Syria.

there have to be boots on the ground to complement any bombing,

The Prime Minister says we can't wait

for the politics to fall into place, we must take action now,

but he agrees bombing won't work alone.

But as we've said, the conflict is complicated -

countries more and less friendly to us are involved,

united in hating Isil, implacably opposed on the issue of Assad,

or on the Kurds, or on Sunni-Shia tensions.

Mark Urban is here to explain some of the intricacies.

Most of Syria, it's the Assad army or one of the rebel groups.

David Cameron today talked about 70,000 moderate rebels.

Experts don't disagree wildly on the number,

rather it's dozens of non-jihadist groups

with politics from the fundamentalist to democrats,

Foreign forces might play all sorts of roles,

including sealing Turkey's border with Syria.

Without foreign ground forces, pressure will be limited,

Is there any cause for optimism on military action?

Well, just recently there's actually been one important

development, and that's the battle to hit Islamic State's finances

by attacking its income from clandestine oil exports.

The trade is carried by tanker trucks that sell oil and

refined products to both the Syrian government and Turkish middlemen.

Russia has recently launched air strikes

So in recent days, the Americans have also been

hitting the tanker convoys and oil markets,

strafing and blowing up tankers in this footage.

They've actually got rather competitive with the Russians,

But Islamic State still has the options of taxing local people

more heavily and raising more from sympathisers abroad.

So what is the key, what are the keys to moving forward? You could go

for an internationally negotiated deal leading to a UN resolution,

international peacekeeping forces. You might call that

the Bosnian model. regional consensus,

simply isn't there. This week we've seen

the sharp escalation of tension between two key players -

Russia and Turkey. advanced long-range

anti-aircraft missiles at its base in Syria

that could be used to shoot down Turkish fighters if there was

a repeat of Tuesday's incident. Although there has been some talk

through the so-called Vienna progress, unless you can get Assad

backed by Russia, the rebel groups backed by the Gulf states, Turkey,

unless you can get them closer together, you know, there isn't

going to be a meaningful change in the situation. We know Russia says

it is hitting IS, but so many of the strikes have been against the

moderates that David Cameron was talking about today, and frankly,

unless you crack that central conundrum of Assad and the rebel

groups, people will carry on supporting IS, and everything

America does, and by extension Britain, will be peripheral to that

central question. Thanks, Mark.

Now in the Commons today, the intervention of one man

was important. He is Crispin Blunt, chair of the

Foreign Affairs Select Committee. His committee had written a report

sceptical of military action, but Mr Blunt now says his

reservations have been dealt with and he is in support,

and he's here with us. Good evening to you. This sounds

like a morass, you were sceptical, you said there had to be some kind

of provisional political arrangement to provide boots on the ground, to

provide something to fill the gap if you get rid of Isil. What has

changed? What has satisfied you? Vienna has changed things. If you

look at the conclusions of the Vienna meeting on the 14th of

November, you can see the route to a transition process, and the

significance of Vienna is that you have got all the key countries

around the table, the Iranians and the Saudis, a process led by the

Americans and the Russians. And the key elements to that agreement

outlined the future type of state that Syria will be, it outlines the

political process, the electoral process that will happen at the end

of it, ensuring that Syrians who have been displaced are going to be

part of the electorate. It outlines who will be supervising that

process. Critically, amongst that, it commits the countries around the

table, all of whom have different clients in this game, to bring their

clients to the table. You can see the need for that. The Russians need

an out, given what has happened in Turkey. I hear what you are saying,

but the key thing the Prime Minister is saying is you have to have this

all in place, but you cannot wait for that to be delivered, we have to

shoot now, bomb now, fill all of that in later. And what we know is

that the British contribution to air strikes in Syria is going to be

marginal to all of this. The containment and the degrading of

Isil within Syria is happening at the hands of the French, the

Americans and the Russians. But why wouldn't we wait and see whether the

politics fits into place? The question for the United Kingdom is

whether it can be more influential on the politics as a full member of

the coalition, or as a non-belligerent in Syria. That is

the hypothesis, if we are a full part of the coalition, we will have

more influence over that political process? That is one of the

questions, and I would agree it is a marginal call. Having spoken to the

Saudis, for example, and the MRI these in the course of the visit my

committee has made in the last week, they are very keen that we should be

in that coalition. -- the Emiratis. There is an element of our European

and American allies saying, if you are not fully in this, we're not

going to listen to what you have to say. There is also the zoo of

solidarity with the French in the light of Paris, and our leaders feel

that quite strongly. -- the issue. Since it is a marginal call, my

belief is the House of Commons should give them the benefit of the

doubt. Isil has got to be defeated, that is the bottom line. What

happens if the judgment you are making that Vienna will lead to

something does not happen, and other great morass, bombing people, a lot

of enemies fighting around them? There are a lot of fundamental now

widely Vienna process is going to produce something. The principal

reason is that the Russians have now got themselves engaged, and they now

need an out, otherwise they are going to be left in this... But

there must be a risk that be and it doesn't lead anywhere, the risk of

bombing first and waiting to see if it delivers. -- Vienna. The bombing

is happening anyway, so the British role in the bombing is at the

margins, there is a little bit of military utility for the Government

to claim, which if it exists. If it is made too much of, it is an

argument carrying too much weight, but there is some weight in that

argument about the use of particular skills of the RAF and the Brimstone

missile and intelligence acquisition kits they have got as part of the

coalition. But the principle is you is about how Britain can be taken

most seriously as a member of the coalition. -- the principal issue.

One last one, we heard today of the 70,000 non-jihadi fighters, Free

Syrian Army fighters. Could you name the leader of that group of

fighters? Voice who do we phone? It is the current president of the

Syrian National Coalition, that is the political body. So of one of

them is breaking the Geneva Convention, we call him and say, can

you deal with it? There is a process going on next week as the Saudis are

holding a meeting of all the Syrian opposition groups to try to create a

representative body for all these Syrian opposition groups and entered

these talks with the Syrian government. That is actually another

important part of the process, it shows that the political transition

is active, there is a plan, and you can see a route to it because

everybody's interests are in getting this done. If I can see the route

and the Prime Minister can see the route, and he took a lot of time to

answer my committee's questions, then my judgment is we need to give

him the benefit of the doubt, because this is the bottom line - we

have to take control of the territory from Isil. We are going to

discuss this with some people who have local views if they agree.

Crispin Blunt, thank you. We hate to call the city of Raqqa

in Syria the capital of the Islamic State,

as IS is not a state. by talking to those

who've managed to get out. Raqqa has been one of the main

targets of coalition air strikes. The city is touted by Isis

as the almost Utopian capital Tonight, though, we speak to

refugees who fled the city who say At first people thought that Isis

was their saviour, but within a month

everything changed. You can see a beheaded corpse

at every other street corner. The eastern city, believed to have

a population of around 400,000, was the first provincial capital

to fall to initially moderate rebel forces before Isis took it over

from them in late 2013. They turned the city's landmarks

into symbols of brutality. The once bustling plaza

around the clock tower is now Roundabouts are at times filled

with the decapitated heads of opponents, and churches

like this one have been taken over. The city has also been pounded

by air strikes by Assad, by the western-led coalition,

and most recently by the Russians. Refugees who fled the city

in the last few weeks sent us videos

describing their experiences. They have had to hide

their identities. whereas the Russians

mainly targeted civilians. Isis hide in underground shelters

with their families. A few went to places like Palmyra,

but others stayed in Raqqa. Isis have trumpeted their medical

and education facilities, but the refugees say Isis isn't even

providing them with the basics. Electricity and water were

only available two hours a day But once Isis took control, we only

got half an hour of electricity a day and water every

couple of days. Food is really expensive and you

have to wait at the bakery all day just to get

a loaf of bread. Isis control large parts of

the east of Syria around Raqqa, but Kurdish and moderate Syrian rebels

have been advancing in the north, They now control Ain Issa,

30 miles north of Raqqa, and there are rumours

of an assault on Raqqa. But Kurdish forces have been accused

of atrocities against local Arabs and are unlikely to be welcomed

in the city. We're between a rock

and a hard place. they've stepped up their control

of the city. We were told it is now much

harder to leave Raqqa and hardly anyone

can use the internet. How Isis rule their capital

could prove their undoing, but no-one knows

who will replace them. So how might life there advance

if Isil were displaced? the Chief of Staff to the President

of the Syrian Opposition Council, from Moscow, Katya Mavrenkova,

an editor at Russia Today. And here in the studio

is Hassan Hassan, author of Isis:

Inside the Army of Terror. First of all, what is your view

about the decision Britain is making? Well, there is a special

importance for a British role in Syria, because the UK supports the

struggle for freedom and democracy. That is why the Syrian people, I

think that they will welcome British involvement in Syria. Catania, how

about you? Well, if you expect me to speak on behalf of of the

government, they have made it clear they would welcome for efforts to

fight Isil, whether it would be the US, the UK, and the Russian

government has been calling for a grand coalition to fight against

Isis. OK, agreement there, Hassan, are you in favour? I think the UK

should be involved in the campaign, firstly because it helps the UK to

be more involved on the ground, and that helps in practical things like

gathering intelligence, but also to be involved, be part of, you know,

any solution, any political solution to the conflict. So you all agree

that we should get involved. Do you think if that meant Assad staying in

power for a few extra months you would be happy with that? If Assad

stays in power, no problem in Syria would be solved. The war will

continue. Assad is actually the start of this problem, that he waged

a war against the people and he continues with that war until now.

Assad also is buying oil from Isis, helping the finance of Isis.

Yesterday the US Treasury department made sanctions against some of the

regime figures that they are financing Isis by buying oil from

them. Assad is a major cause of the humanitarian problem in Syria, as

well as the rise and expansion of Isis. The Syrian people themselves,

they cannot fight Isis. They are the boots on the ground actually. They

cannotifies Isis effectively unless they protect themselves and they are

also protected from the Assad bombing against them. OK, so let me

interrupt there. Assad has to go. You think Assad has to go. What

about Russia, Katia. Is Russia going to be able to sit down with Monze,

are and come to some kind of agreement, or not, on what you have

just heard? Before answering that question I would like to go back

briefly to your previous question. As I said, Russia would welcome

joining efforts with anyone who would like to fight against Isis.

Although Roisin assists that bombing other countries like, say, Syria and

Iraq should only be happening with the permission of the Government in

those countries. As you know, Russia is carrying out its campaign in

Syria after the invitation of the legitimate Syrian Government, Bashar

al-Assad, whereas the US is doing it without the permission of the

Government whatsoever. They would welcome only if they got an

agreement from the Syrian Government. As for Bashar al-Assad

staying in power, in contrast to what the West has been accusing

Russia of, supporting President Assad and trying to keep him in

power, Russia has been saying all along that it is not Russia's goal

to keep Bashar al-Assad in power. Russia has been saying it is up to

the Syrians to decide their own future. Like the previous speaker

was saying, there is a fight against Isis currently going on in Syria.

Just like President Putin said, combining efforts with those forces

who are fighting Isis on the ground is key to all those coalition

efforts. Right, everybody agrees, combining the forces is very

important, but it is whether you can agree on the terms on which you are

going to do it. Hassan, do you think the Vienna process can get these two

to agree enough that we get a joint Army, if you like? I don't think so,

and I think the disproportional focus on the Vienna talks and a

political process to deal with this situation in Damascus is in many

ways a waste of time. Because we are wasting so many opportunities of

doing things on the ground elsewhere in the country that could engineer a

situation... Sorry, who on the ground? Who is going to do it on the

ground if it is not the Syrian Government Army and the Free Syrian

Army? There are plenty of opportunities. I had a Skype call

with one of the commanders who was driven out of eastern Syria because

of Isis. Instead of going to hang out in Turkey or go as refugees

elsewhere outside the country, what are they doing now? They are

fighting Isis on the front lines in it lip, Aleppo and southern Syria.

These are the forces that you can work with. There are plenty of those

forces. OK, that's a different plan from the one Crispin Blunt was

telling us about. Monze, are, this conflict seemed to have been dogged

by the fact that there hasn't been agreement on who is the worst. Who

is the worst enemy for you, Assad or ice is? They are both committing

crimes against humanity. They are both committing war crimes. And they

are both killing the Syrian people and oppressing the Syrian people

every day. So for the Syrians they are both the enemies and think have

to be destroyed for the Syrian people. But the biggest fight the

Syrian people are having now is with Assad. Assad is attacking

everywhere, bombing the cities, bombing the villages. They are the

Iranian Revolutionary Guard and militia are helping on the ground.

The Russians are helping. By the way the Russians are not bombing Isis

but the moderate rebels. They are helping Assad. So this war, the war

that Assad is waging against the people is very oppressive on the

people much more than what Isis is doing. As for the enemies, they are

both enemies and they have to go. I'm so sorry, I'm afraid we are out

of time. I thank you all very much indeed. We are going to see how

complicated it is to get political agreement.

We've heard a lot of argument this evening.

But a reminder now of how the consequences of the suffering

A second charter plane full of vulnerable refugees

arrived today, this time in Newcastle.

David Cameron has offered 20,000 places over the next five years -

we are still early in the process of taking people in.

You may or may not know that Newsnight is following the fortunes

Katie Razzall went to Jordan to meet one of the families who

reached Newcastle today, and she's also caught up with another family

It's their first week in a strange many places to visit. New tastes,

new smells. For a family who fled Syria for Jordan and now have a new

home in Scotland. Tar-tan. Tartan. Having first met the family as they

prepared to leave Jordan, 000 they are on British soil, and here on the

Scottish streets what little English they know is being tested. Is it a

relief to be here? For now to protect them the Scottish council is

supporting the family won't let us film them at home. So we took them

on their first day trip to Glasgow. They want to record everything. A

family all too aware of their luck. Deemed vulnerable enough for

resettlement by UNHCR, Britain offered refuge.

Nourallah needs a jaw operation. It was shadow nerd a rocket attack on

their Syrian home. Laith and Bayhas are his nephews. Their father died

in Syria. This family's life won't begin properly until residency

papers come through. Then school, doctors appointments and language

classes will begin. What did you learn? Ship... Monkey. Crocodile.

But even a good day is tingeed with sadness. It is complicated but her

first children by her first marriage are stuck in Syria.

We took the family to a Glasgow institution, the ubiquitous

restaurant for Scottish fare, in line with their religious

traditions. Vegetarian haggis there. When you first arrived here, what

struck you? How does it compare with your old home in Jordan? Even in the

safety of the UK, the adult don't want to talk about Syrian politics,

about air strikes or regime change. Fearful for relatives still in

Syria. But I wanted to know how the Paris attacks and changing attitudes

to refugees affected them as they left Jordan.

When we spoke in Amman, I remember you said to me, probably you

wouldn't be able to go back to Syria and that Britain would be your new

home. First impressions, it is early days, but do you still feel that

this is a place you'll be able to call home now you're here?

Many Syrian refugees don't want to leave the Middle East. But five

years of war means resettlement is their only option. Like another

Syrian family, I met in Jordan, who arrived in the UK today. Marwan, the

head of the household, showed me around their Jordanian home. They

had so little, no money for medicine for Marwan's health problems, or to

pay for school. Goodbye... Goodbye. One boy... One boy. Nour is eight,

his sister is partially deaf, and she is 16. The boys, Omar and

Mohammed, they fled their home west of Damascus more than two years ago.

Despite it all, until recently they still believed they would go home.

They may never see Syria again. But as they left Jordan for Newcastle

this morning there was optimism too for a better future. We hope to meet

them again soon as they begin their new life. We will be staying in

touch with the families. Emily will be in the chair tomorrow, Black

Friday. Have a very good night. Good evening. After a mild day on

Thursday, Friday brings us a transition to much cooler conditions

from the north-west. We've got this active cold front pushing in

initially across Northern