06/07/2016 Victoria Derbyshire

Our top story, more than 13 years after Tony Blair sent British troops

to fight in Iraq, families of the 179 UK service personnel

who died in the conflict await the findings of Sir

We just want a closure of it and the MoD to at least perhaps meet us or

at least say yeah, there were failings. This is what the failings

were and hopefully they will correct it in the future.

Ahead of the report's publication, we'll be looking at the key issues

it's expected to address and political fall-out

We'll also be talking to Iraqis about the conflict and the thousands

I can have my life to when before everything happened. I would go to

Iraq without any hesitation, it is impossible, isn't it?

And thousands of Wales fans head to France for the biggest football

We'll be speaking to some of them as they pray for success and a place

The sentencing of Oscar Pistorious is under way. Let's listen in. In

compelling circumstances. But has left it to the courts to make that

determination. Fortunately the correct approach in this regard is

set out in S 2001 volume one ACR 469, SCA. I have to rephrase this.

Fortunately the correct approach in this regard is set out in 2001, Vop

1, ACR 469, SCA, there the Supreme Court of Appeal stated the

following. "In short, the legislator aimed at ensuring a severe

standardised and consistent response from the courts to the commission of

such crimes. Unless there were and could be seen to be truly convincing

reasons for a different response. When considering sentence the

emphasis was to be shifted to the objective gravity of the type of

crime and the public's need for effective sanctions against it. But

that did not mean that all other considerations were to be ignored.

The discretion to decline, to pass the sentence which the commission of

such an offence would ordinary airline have tracked was given to

the courts in recognition of the easily foreseeable injustices which

could result from obliging them to pass the specific sentences come

what may." 353, SCA in brackets at paragraph 15

the following was said, "It is clear from the terms in which the test was

framed and endorsed that it is incumbent upon a court in every case

before it imposes a preascribed sentence to assess upon

consideration of all the circumstances of the particular case

whether the prescribed sentence is indeed proportionate to the particle

offence. The constitutional court made it clear that what it meant by

the offence in that context, I leave out something, consists of all

factors relevant to the nature and seriousness of the criminal act

itself. As well as all the relevant personal and other circumstances

relating to the offender which could have a bearing on the seriousness of

the offence and the culpability of the offender. If a court is indeed

satisfied that a lesser sentence is called for in a particular case,

thus justifying the departure from the prescribed sentence then it

hardly needs saying that the court is bound to impose that lesser

sentence. That was also made clear in this case which said that the

relevant provision in the Act vests the sentencing court with power and

indeed the obligation to consider whether the particular circumstances

of the case would require a different sentence to be imposed.

And a different sentence must be imposed if the court is satisfied

that substantial and compelling circumstances exists which justify

it." Paragraph 22 puts it this way - the more a court feels uneasy about

any imposition... STUDIO: Let's leave that for the

moment. Proceedings are live from Pretoria. The judge has been setting

out from 8.30am our time, legislation regarding the 15 year

minimum sentencing for this kind of crime and what discretion she has

available to her. So she is setting out the kind of previous legislation

regarding 15 year minimum sentencing for murder and what discretion is

available to her. She is going through it in minute detail. And we

will, of course, come back to the proceedings during the course of the

programme. Our top story, more than seven years

after it was set up, the Chilcot Inquiry

into the Iraq War will publish It's more than 13 years

since Tony Blair committed British forces to the US-led invasion that

toppled Saddam Hussein. Tens of thousands of Iraqis died

along with 179 UK service personnel. Claims that the Iraqi leader had

weapons of mass destruction Tony Blair has said he does not

regret removing a brutal dictator. The inquiry was asked to identify

what lessons should be learned. Its chairman, Sir John Chilcot,

has said he hopes future military action won't be launched

without more rigorous analysis. It's seven years since his inquiry

was established and more than five years since he concluded the public

examination of witnesses. Now, finally, Sir John Chilcot

is ready to publish his findings. Last night, he was unrepentant

that the task has taken so long. To get to the bottom

of what happened over a nine year period, with all the legal,

military, diplomatic and intelligence and

political aspects of it, Sir John is not expected

to offer a judgement None of his team is a lawyer

and this wasn't part of his remit. The principle areas

on which it is thought he will offer conclusions

are the nature of the relationship between Tony Blair and the then US

President, George W Bush and the extent to which Mr Blair

gave Mr Bush private undertakings without the backing either

of his Cabinet or Parliament that Britain would join

the invasion of Iraq. Sir John is thought to have been

greatly exercised by the style of Mr Blair's so-called

sofa Government with, it is suggested, far too little

opportunity for the Cabinet to discuss issues in particular,

the vexed question of Central to everything in the lead-up

to war was the use of intelligence provided by the Secret

Intelligence Service MI6. Why were its warnings that

intelligence were sketchy ignored? Did the then chief of MI6,

Sir Richard Dearlove, allow his service to be pressurised

by Tony Blair's officials to the extent that the Prime

Minister made misleading The main expectation that I have

is that it will not be possible in future to engage in a military

or indeed, a diplomatic endeavour on such a scale and on such gravity

without really careful challenge, analysis and assessment

and collective political judgement In other words, Sir John Chilcot

would appear to have concluded that Britain was taken to war in Iraq

without sufficient discussion and without a sufficient

understanding of the real facts. Our Political Correspondent Chris

Mason is in Central London, where Sir John Chilcot

will release his report The timetable for today Chris and

the potential political fall-out? Yes, good morning, Victoria from the

Queen Elizabeth Centre where victims families have gathered. They are

looking through the report right now. Despite its volume and the time

scale that Sir John and his team have been examining the events

between 2003 and 2009 there is a vast burden on the somehoweders of

this report in terms of the expectations that many of the

families have, or the questions that they have, they hope this report can

offer some answers to. As you say, the political consequences of today

and obviously, there will be huge questions for Tony Blair and for

many of the senior figures of the Blair administration at the time

that the UK headed to war, but then also, the spectacle, that one of the

leading voices of opposition at the time, in Jeremy Corbyn the Labour

leader, one of the founders of the Stop the War Coalition will be at

the dispatch of the House of Commons offering his verdict, his analysis,

given that he argued from the very outset that the war was a mistake

and who would have predicted back then that a marginal voice on the

Labour backbenchers, albeit one who became pretty central to a vibrant

campaign to prevent the war happening should be delivering his

verdict, his political assessment on one of his predecessors from the

dispatch box of the House of Commons.

Joanna is in the BBC Newsroom with more of the day's news.

The Iraqi Health Ministry says the number of people now known

to have been killed in Sunday's suicide bombing in Baghdad

The attack, claimed by the Islamic State group,

is now the deadliest in the Iraqi capital

The South African Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius is due to be

sentenced today for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva

Pistorius could face 15 years in prison after he was convicted

That ruling came after the State successfully appealed

against an earlier verdict of manslaughter for which Pistorius

has served nine months of a five-year sentence.

The first round of votes for the Conservative leadership

took place yesterday with the Home Secretary,

Theresa May, winning by a considerable margin.

Dr Liam Fox received the lowest number of votes

Stephen Crabb also said he won't put himself forward for the next round.

Both have said they will now back Theresa May.

There's continued volatility in financial markets

in the aftermath of the UK's vote to leave the European Union.

In Asian trading, the pound hit a new 31 year low.

Analysts say investors are diverting funds to what are seen

as safe havens, principally government bonds.

A patient lay dead for up to four-and-a-half hours before

being found at one of London's busiest A and E departments,

according to a new report from health inspectors.

North Middlesex University Hospital Trust says it is "extremely sorry"

for the problems in its emergency unit.

Protests have taken place in the US state of Louisiana after a video

emerged appearing to show two white police officers holding down

The incident took place in the state capital, Baton Rouge,

on Tuesday after reports of a man threatening people with a gun

Alton Sterling, 37 died of gunshot wounds to the chest and back.

That's a summary of the latest BBC News.

In a moment, we'll be asking some of the politicians who voted

on going to war in Iraq what they're hoping to hear from the Chilcott

It is out at 11am. Much of the programme will be dominated as we

build up to that publication, we will be talking to people with a

military background, those with security expertise, politicians at

the time who were there as the decisions were made and of course,

bereaved relatives of those who were killed during that war. Also today,

we are awaiting the sentencing of South African athlete, Oscar

Pistorious. Sentencing began at about 8.30am. Let's dip back into

proceedings. Was in the minds of most people portrayed as the

confident, 1.84 meters tall, strong ambitious person winning gold

medals. This obscured the relevant fact that at the time the accused

shot at the toilet door and killed the deceased, it was 3 o'clock in

the morning and dark. He was not wearing his prothesis, but was on

his stumps and measured 1.5 meters in height and felt vulnerable. The

third had to do with emotions of the public emanating from the

perceptions above. Defence counsel submitted that because of these

emotions there was a danger that the true facts might escape the general

public who may then have unreasonable expectations in terms

of an outcome. I shall come back to these submissions later. Counsel for

the State sought to argue that Mrs Steenkamp's pain had nothing to do

with any perception he might have had about what led to the death of

the deceased and that in fact, to link the two would be to diminish a

father's real pain. I don't think anything anyone says

or does can diminish the pain felt by the victim 's family. The pain is

they are, real and tangible. Nevertheless the misperception that

there was an argument before the deceased was shot and killed and

that the accused was guilty of murder... Cannot be ignored. To do

so may not serve the ends of justice. I return to submission by

counsel for the accused concerning the public 's perception of what may

have happened on the 14th of their 2013. The submissions by defence

counsel have merit, insofar as some members of the public is concerned

cannot be disputed. I am therefore constrains to accept that all the

submissions which were made with good reason. Had it not been for the

unique features of this case and the wide publicity the case has

attracted I would probably have dismissed such submissions as in

proper and unnecessary. -- improper. I say this for the following

reasons. Our courts are court of law, not court of public opinion.

While judicial offices are expected to adjudicate matters without fear,

fever and prejudice. The court is aware that natural indignation of

interested persons in all of the community at large should and does

receive some recognition in the sentences the court impose as

counsel for the state correctly argued.

However in my view such indignation must be based on facts as reflected

in the evidence properly placed before court under oath and tested

under cross examination. Where are wrong perception about a particular

fact exists, as it does in this matter, and has been brought to the

attention of the court, it is the duty of the court to correct it and

put the correct facts in perspective to prevent unjustified outrage from

the public. It is appropriate that the state says something about the

limited role of public opinion in the sentencing as set out in 1997.

There it was stated that the object of sentencing was not to

satisfy public opinion but to serve for lead public opinion or the

public interest. He stated that sentencing policy which catered

predominantly or exclusively for public opinion was inherently

flawed. It was the court 's duty to impose an appropriate and fair

sentence fearlessly, even if the sentence did not satisfy the public.

He further stated the following, public opinion may have some

relevance to the enquiry but in itself it is no substitute for the

duty vested in the courts. The court cannot allow itself to be diverted

from its jute it to act as an independent arbiter by making

choices on the basis that they will find favour with the public. In the

present case public opinion may be loud and persistent but it can play

no role in the decision of this court. The objective facts on the

merits in this matter are on records and do not warrant repetition for

purposes of the present procedure. So far as it is to state that the

defence counsel correctly submitted those facts have not been disturbed

as no further evidence was led on appeal. It is those facts, not

conjecture and certainly not suppositions, which will guide this

court in its decision. The defence counsel is correct in the submission

that this court ought not to lose sight of the fact that Oscar

Pistorius who shot and killed the deceased was not the acclaimed Oscar

Pistorius who defied odds on the racecourse and won medals. My view

is that even without the physical demonstration which took place in

court to show the difference between on his stumps and the accused on his

prosthetic legs, it is easy to see that we are here dealing with two

different persons. This was clearly set out by Professor Scholes in his

earlier report. This evidence was not contradicted and the assessment

of the accused personality in this matter is not far fetched in my

view. To ignore this fact would be to lead to an injustice, in my view.

However it is also important to keep in mind that the accused is just one

of the many considerations in the sentencing process. There are others

equally important and they also have to be taken. Into account. I

understood counsel for the defence to be contending, though not in so

many ways, for a long custodial sentence. Relying on the report of

Professor Scholes he submitted earlier that a custodial sentence

would serve no purpose as the accused had been rehabilitated. He

based his submissions on the fact that the accused had completed a

number of courses and had attended workshops whilst he was in

incarcerated. Rehabilitation is only one of the purposes of punishment.

The other purposes, namely retribution, deterrence, Reformation

and prevention are just as important and ought to be properly addressed

as well. The degree with which each will feature in any sentencing

procedure will depend on the crime the accused has been found guilty of

as well as the circumstances of each case. Circumstances in this matter

have changed as the accused has now been found guilty of murder, a more

serious offence than culpable homicide. Having regard to the

changed circumstances the rehabilitation programmes that the

accused was exposed to during his incarceration may or may not be

sufficient. For present purposes. That is now that the accused has

been found guilty of a more serious crime. It is not for this court to

determine the sufficiency or insufficiency, that is the

prerogative of the prison authorities if the accused is sent

to prison. This court however is obliged to and does take into

consideration the fact that the accused successfully completed the

programmes referred to above. This in my view is an indication that the

accused is a good candidate for rehabilitation and that the other

purposes of punishment, though important, what not to play a

dominant role in the sentencing process. Also to be taken into

consideration is the fact that the accused has already spent some time

incarcerated in prison serving his original sentence. I may add that a

contrary impression to whether the accused was a good candidate for

rehabilitation may have been created perhaps inadvertently during the

cross-examination of Professor Scholes when it was put to him that

initially the accused had difficulty adjusting as an inmate. Professor

Scholes was quick to disagree with such a statement stating that the

accused was not a violent person. The basis of the disagreement was

not clear to me as no one had said anything about the accused being

violent by nature. What was said was simply a fact as observed by the

author of the report that initially the accused struggled to adjust as

an inmate and cited relevant examples of an acceptable conduct. I

did not get the impression from this report or from anything stated by

anyone during the proceedings that prison authorities were trying to

vilify the accused or brand him as a violent person. On the contrary,

from the documentation placed before this court and the evidence the

impression I got was that after the initial challenges the accused had

to adjust, he had made progress and was cooperating with prison

authorities. The fact that the accused may perhaps be quick

tempered does not necessarily mean he is a violent person. Defence also

sought to rely on Professor Scholes evidence that the accused needed to

be hospitalised as his condition had worsened since the last time he saw

him in 2014. I am in agreement with counsel for the state that Professor

Scholes evidence in this regard is not convincing. I say this for the

following reasons. One, there was no confirmation from the accused

treating psychiatrist that the accused condition was such that his

admission to hospital was warranted. Two, no steps were taken to have the

accused admitted to hospital, notwithstanding that according to

Professor Scholes he had discussed the issue with the accused

psychiatrist. The inference is irresistible that the psychiatrist

is not the court -- does not support the view of Scholes on the matter.

The determination of an appropriate sentence which satisfies every

relevant interest is never easy. It is made even more difficult by the

fact that nothing that this court will do or say today shall bring

back the life of the deceased. As stated earlier each case must be

assessed on its own facts in search of balance between the accused

personal circumstances, the gravity of the offence, the interest of

society as well as the victim of the offence committed. All these have

been taken into account. Earlier I set out the impact that the crime

committed by the accused has had on the family of the deceased. It is

difficult to fully describe its ramifications. What was evident from

the testimony of both Mr Steenkamp and Miss Martin is that their lives

shall never be the same. Details of what they went through and are still

going through as a family have been described above. Thankfully healing

has already started as both Mr Kemp two and Mrs Steenkamp have stated

they have given the accused. -- both Mr Steenkamp and Mrs Steenkamp have

stated they have forgiven the accused. The accused has lost his

career and fallen financially. Having taken the life of a fellow

human being in the manner he did he cannot be at peace.

It came as no surprise when his pastor and Professor Scholes

described him as a broken man. Recovery is possible. But it will

depend mostly on the accused's attitude to the punishment imposed

on him. This court is aware that the accused, threw his pastor has shown

a willingness and expressed a wish to do community work as punishment.

That is a noble gesture. However, punishment is not what you choose to

do, it is something that is imposed on you by its very nature,

punishment is unpleasant, it is uncomfortable, it is painful, and it

is inconvenient. It is certainly not what you love to do. I have

considered the evidence in this matter, the submissions and argument

by counsel as well as the relevant case law and other authorities.

Although a custodial sentence a the proper sentence, I am of the view

that a long-term of imprisonment will not serve justice in this

matter. The accused has already served a sentence of 12 months

imprisonment. He is a first offender and considering the facts of this

matter, he is not likely to reoffend. The sentence that I impose

will have to reflect, not only that fact, but also the seriousness of

the offence. It will in so far as it is possible have to be fair to the

accused as well as to the deceased's family and society at large. Mr

Pistorius, please rise. In the result the sentence that I

impose on the accused for the murder of the deceased that is Reeva

Steenkamp is six years imprisonment. Once more I'd like to thank counsel,

all counsel involved for the assistance. I would like to thank

all the officers of this court and all the staff of this court. In the

meantime, I will adjourn and I will be in chambers just in case I have

to come back to court. Counsel might like to consider whether or not they

want to apply for leave to appeal. I'm willing to hear it today if that

is what counsel want. STUDIO: So Oscar Pistorious has been

jailed for six years for the murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.

He will spend the next six years in custody as Judge Masipa read out her

sentence, Mr Pistorius was completely impassive and then the

camera cut to the parents of Reeva Steenkamp and there was, it looked

to me, like some shock from Reeva Steenkamp's relatives and friends in

the public gallery. Judge Masipa has spent just over an hour now going

through the case in minute detail, for most of that, Oscar Pistorious

was sitting with his head bowed, occasionally you could see the

parents of Reeva Steenkamp, June and Barry, listening intently, the judge

said, "Our courts are courts of law, not courts of public opinion and

public opinion will play no role in the decision of this court." She

said that the accused was a good candidate for rehabilitation and she

also said the fact that he had a quick temper did not mean he was a

violent person. She noted too, that Reeva Steenkamp's parents had

forgiven him. She described him as a fallen hero. She said Oscar

Pistorious cannot be at peace for taking the life of a human being.

She said punishment has to be uncomfortable and inconvenient and

noted he had already served 12 months in prison and that he was a

first offender and he was not likely to reoffend. And that a long term in

prison would not serve justice, those are the words of the judge.

She then asked Oscar Pistorious to rise and sentenced him to six years

in jail for the murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. She

talked earlier about minimum sentencing for such a crime being 15

years and talked about what discretion was available to her to

alter that kind of sentence. A fallen hero, she described Oscar

Pistorious as. Oscar Pistorious was, she said, a long term in prison will

not serve justice and when she announced that he would be spending

the next six years in jail, he did not react. He was completely

impassive. His eyes were locked on the judge. And the cameras cut to

the parents of Reeva Steenkamp. It took, I think, several seconds for

the sentencing to sink in for those in the courtroom, particularly the

friends and family of Ms Steenkamp. So the sentenceling finally, the end

of Oscar Pistorious' trial, the sentencing today, six years in jail

for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. Obviously, we will bring you much

more reaction to that sentence. It is not clear if Mr and Mrs

Steenkamp, the parents of Reeva will say anything on the court, if their

lawyers do, then you will hear that live on this programme. The judge

also said that she would accept from the Steenkamp lawyers any lodging of

an appeal if they wanted to appeal against that sentence then they

could do that today. More on the reaction to the sentence

of Oscar Pistorious throughout the programme.

It's more than 13 years since Tony Blair committed British

For the families of the 179 service personnel who died

during the conflict it's been an incredibly long wait for answers,

answers about why we went to war, who made mistakes and lessons that

For the last hour, politicians and bereaved families have been

locked away reading Sir John Chilcot's report

No easy task, this stack of paper shows how long it is.

At 11am, its findings will be made public.

These are some of the things we already know.

To put that in context, the Bible has 775,000 words.

It'll span 12 volumes, plus an executive summary.

Plus the panel reviewed 150,000 documents to produce this report.

Members of the public will have to pay that ?800 though

or it can be read for free on the inquiry's website.

2.6 million words, seven years in the making.

This is the report that many hope will get close to the truth

A retired civil servant, he spent much of his life

In 2009, then Prime Minister Gordon Brown appointed him to chair

Now is the right time to ensure we have the proper process in place

to learn the lessons of this complex and often

It looks at the years between 2001 and 2009.

That takes us from the build-up to war and the search

for weapons of mass destruction through to the looting and violence

We are determined to be thorough, vigorous, fair and frank.

It has heard evidence from more than 150 witnesses including

then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, former spy chief,

Sir John Scarlett and then Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

What I was saying to President Bush was very clear and simple.

You can count on us, we'll be with you in tackling this,

The report was first meant to be published in 2010.

There were rows about which secret intelligence could be seen

by the inquiry but the biggest factor has been something

called Maxwellisation, named after this man,

It means anyone criticised in a report like this has a right

We won't know for sure until Sir John Chilcot speaks at 11am

but here are three key questions we expect some answers to.

What went wrong with intelligence gathering in the run-up to war?

In particular, the key claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

The Government later admitted that claim was false.

Question two, when did Tony Blair and the British Government make

Did the former Prime Minister secretly promise the US his support

while telling the public nothing was decided?

And what plans were made for Iraq after the invasion?

Were British troops stationed in Basra properly equipped

for the dangerous job they were asked to do.

The inquiry is not a court of law and can't find anyone guilty

but it can make recommendations and blame individuals

A group of MPs have said they could call for legal action

against Tony Blair if the report is highly critical.

Let us talk now to Labour MP Mike Gapes who says he'd vote

He's had problems getting here this morning so he joins us on the phone.

Conservative MP John Barron who resigned from the Shadow Cabinet

John McTernan, Tony Blair's former Director of Political Operations.

Steven Powles, an international criminal lawyer, and Frank Dobson,

the Labour MP who voted against war with Iraq.

Welcome all of you. I would like to start with you Mr Gapes explain why

you would vote for the Iraq war again? Because if Saddam Hussein or

his son had been in power in 2011 we would have had an even worse

situation than the 500,000 dead in Syria as a result of that regime.

Saddam had a history of killing his own peoplement he used chemical

weapons against the Kurds in 1998 and he invaded Iran in 198 o and he

invaded Kuwait in 1991 and he then killed 100,000 Shias in the marsh

Arabs who went against him in 1991. Saddam was a calculated murderer and

he has therefore, made the situation far worse than anybody else in the

region in terms of the abuses of Human Rights and the murder of his

own people and his neighbours. John, Baron what do you say? I disagree,

Mike, if you applied that logic, we would be applying the law of the

jungle to the international community. Every country who thought

they had a gripe against an individual could go on and invade,

we were told there were weapons of mass destruction, it turned out

there weren't. We went to war on a false premise, I think we should all

recognise that is the case, was that an intentional deception by Number

Ten other or not? We wasn't to war on a false premise and many, many

people suffered as a result of that. John McTern nan, the false premise,

was it intentional? Was it a deception of the British people, do

you believe? Of course, it wasn't a deception of the British people. We

went to defence of the United Nations. There had been 17 UN

Security Council resolutions. Saddam's regime were frustrating the

ability of the United Nations to inspect weapons. If Saddam right up

until the point of invasion, if Saddam had opened everything to Hans

Blix and the inspectors he would still be there now. Those inspectors

did want more time, didn't they? Those inspectors, there were 17

resolutions, they had years and years, even at the last moment, even

though Saddam knew that he was under a deadline he still frustrated what

Hans was doing. You can't in the end say that someone has a deadline and

then not act otherwise you deprive the UN of all authority. There was

no UN resolution sanking war. It was ambiguous. It could have been

interpreted both ways. At the end of the day, we couldn't carry the

French or a loft international community with this. This was an

endeavour by Britain andth US to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The

justification of that WMD proved false. Even if there was a UN

resolution, it would have been stupid to do it because I made a

speech about a month before we went to war and people say some things

were predictable, they were predicted. I wanted to know what

arrangements had been made to govern Iraq after we invaded. There were no

arrangements made. I predicted people would start

falling out and killing one another and the placement turn, into broad.

I also predicted it would promote terrorism all over the middle east,

there was terrorism in the Middle East but it gave it a big boost and

all those things were predictable. I am not an expert on the Middle East,

I wasn't then and I'm not know. Did you believe there were weapons of

mass destruction? I did not. Why not, some intelligence forces were

telling us they were weapons of mass to structure and which were being

concealed? It seemed to meet the policy of containment and continued

inspection was keeping things reasonably and order. But then we

invade and it all falls apart and the idea we have established a sort

of secure democracy in Iraq, a large chunk of Iraq is now controlled by

Islamic State. Mike Gapes, do you not accept what Frank Dobson has

just said, that the policy of containment seemed to be working?

Well, the Saddam Hussein regime was not in anyway complying with the UN

resolutions. There were real fears that he had nuclear weapons

aspirations, he had used chemical weapons against his own people and

he also was clearly in a position where many Iraqis were dying. Young

children were dying. People at the time were calling for the lifting of

sanctions on humanitarian grounds. The oil for food programme was being

stolen by Saddam Hussein and his regime. We have also been joined by

Lord Faulkner who is a close friend of Tony Blair, you were not involved

in the decision-making at the time, but as someone who was in the inner

circle, did you know that the intelligence on weapons of mass

destruction was being presented in a much more emphatic way that was

actually accurate? I don't think that it was, I think the position

was that although the bits of intelligence being relied on were

sporadic and patchy, to use the language of the intelligence

reports, all the intelligence agencies, not just in the UK but

America, France, Germany, were pretty clear that he had weapons of

mass to structure in. That was reflected in the fact that the

United Nations from 1991-2002 had passed after resolution posited on

the basis he had weapons of mass to structuring. Then when weapons

inspectors went in and could not find anything, what were you

thinking? There had been weapons inspectors in between 1991 and 1998

and they had not found anything but in 1996 the son-in-law of Saddam had

come out and said the weapons inspectors had missed biological

weapons. The fact that Saddam Hussein had forced out the weapons

inspectors in 1998 led to the conclusion that he had done that to

try to hide something. Is that not a fair enough assumption? Yes and no.

We would all agree that war has to be the last resort when all other

options have been explored and this wasn't the case. All the evidence

since and I hope the Chilcot enquiry also looks at this, there were spin

doctors working within the system making the case for war. Turning

possibilities into probabilities, burning indications into assumption.

That is true John McTernan? That is nonsense. You read the dossier?

Rueda the nonsense is that there were spin doctors working on the

evidence. The legal advice, the evidence that was based on, there

were not spin doctors working on it and it's outrageous to say the

British civil service who were accumulating this evidence which as

the phrase goes was patchy, that they were themselves spinning that

material. It's is shameful allegation. It's just nonsense.

There was an organisation working and making the case for war,

spanning the information. You are an international criminal lawyer, the

remit of the Chilcot report does not involve looking at the war was legal

or not but does it have significance in legal terms? Absolutely, when a

state decides to employ its Armed Forces against another state it must

be in accordance and compliance with international law. In this case you

had advice being given to the government by the Attorney General

and it's important to look at the quality of that advice and see if

the advice given was correct and accurate. No matter how bad Saddam

Hussein was, you cannot just use force to take them out, it has to be

in compliance with the international framework and that is what it is

important to look at going forward, taking sure that all future uses of

force are complied with international law. You said earlier

it was ambiguous but respectfully I disagree. The consensus of

international legal opinion is that there was a breach of the UN

Charter. Former Secretary General Kofi was interviewed and said there

was a breach of the charter. If the Chilcot report Lord Faulkner does go

down that road would you expect to see cases brought by Brive families

against your friend Tony Blair? I understand Sir John Chilcot will not

express a view about the legality or otherwise and I understand that on

the basis that that is what has been indicated in the past. I think what

Stephen is saying, it does not address the nature of the revolution

1441 which was in effect saying you have 30 days to come into full

compliance at and if you don't all necessary steps will be taken. The

invasion occurred for in a half months after the 30 days were up. I

don't think anyone disputes Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with

1441. Lawyers can debate whether or not that was a matter of

construction did allow the use of force but what any government has to

do is rely on its chief legal adviser. Let me as all of you what

it is, what answers you would like today, Frank Dobson? I would like to

know why we went to war and it looks as though we did it because a stupid

American president wanted to go to war and we didn't want to fight with

him. I would like to know the lessons of governing in a

post-conflict situation. You are happy with the decisions taken? Of

course I am. WMD was the justification used strongly on the

House of Commons, I would therefore like to know given that we all now

know we went to war on a false premise, was that deception

intentional by number ten? That's a key question we should have

answered, but whether it is answered is another matter. I think an

important lesson to learn from this is that it is imperative we pay more

heed to the international rule of law. That we encourage and support

institutions like the International criminal Court so there can be an

end to impunity and war crimes and crimes against humanity and when it

comes in the crime of aggression in the years to come. I think what is

important is what Frank said, how did the decisions get made, was it

done honestly or dishonestly? How did the intelligence services end up

in the wrong place and what planning was done? It's the facts which

matter and that is what Sir John Chilcot has to produce. Thank you

all very much for coming on the programme, thank you for your time

and patience. The breaking news, Oscar Pistorius has been sentenced

to six years in jail for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

Late last year the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa overturned

his conviction of manslaughter instead finding him guilty of

murdering Reeva Steenkamp in 2013. Judge Masipa today handed down the

sentence. Mr Pistorius please rise. In the result of the sentence that I

impose on the accused for the murder of the deceased Reeva Steenkamp is

six years imprisonment. Lets talk to our correspondent

outside the High Court in Pretoria. Describe the atmosphere in the

courtroom as the sentence was handed down? The judge stated that she felt

Oscar Pistorius showed remorse throughout the trial and therefore

the mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating

circumstances which is why Oscar Pistorius has not been given the

minimum sentence of 15 years for murder. The judge believes Oscar

Pistorius, if he was to serve longer jail sentence, would not serve

justice. Therefore Oscar Pistorius was sentenced to six years.

According to South African law it means he will have to serve 50% of

the sentence also taking into consideration he has already spent

one year in prison for culpable homicide so that will also be taken

into consideration. Oscar Pistorius cried after the judge said he has

been sentenced, we saw him hugging his sister before being taken

downstairs to the holding cells. Oscar Pistorius will serve his first

night in prison today. There will be some in South Africa suggesting that

sentence isn't enough? That's correct, it depends who you ask

because those people who support Oscar Pistorius believe the fact he

has already served one year in jail means he has already been punished

enough and should not have been given a further six years. But those

who support Reeva Steenkamp's family say six years is not enough and that

a 15 year minimum sentence should have been imposed. Thank you for the

moment. More to come on the sentence of Oscar Pistorius in the next hour

of the programme and we will continue to build up to the

publication of the Chilcot report into the Iraq war. The report itself

published finally after years at 11. Let's get a weather update.

The fine weather on display today, we have not said that too often this

summer, lots of sunshine to start. It was pretty chilly first thing but

with the help of blue sky and reasonably strong July sunshine

temperatures are claiming. Another cracking day in Shetland. The clouds

starting to build up elsewhere, throwing quite a lot of sunshine so

things are turning hazy but the high pressure keeping things drive. There

will be thickening cloud, a few spots of rain likely particularly to

the north of Northern Ireland and it will get damp across West are part

of Scotland. Elsewhere the breeze is significant because it is lighter

than yesterday so it feels a bit warmer. Western Scotland, staying

fine across the north-east, we may catch a light shower across Cumbria

but generally England and Wales staying fine and any of those

showers in the next few hours should fade. The cloud will spill in,

feeling quite warm outside. Temperatures up to 19, 20, 21 or 22

in a few places. Should be pleasant for a men's quarterfinal day at

Wimbledon, sunny skies. And sunny in France, a balmy evening for Portugal

against Wales. Pretty pleasant if you're in Wales watching the game as

well, should be fine in Cardiff on the big screen. Further north we

will see wet and windy weather, some of the range rattling into Northern

England and North Wales. Into tomorrow and it's a mixed picture,

high-pressure trying to hold on in the South, the dangling weather

front across the UK. It will bring quite a grey day, Northern England

and North Wales dull and damp, some brightness may be to the Pennines.

Brighter day in western Scotland and Northern Ireland, would be as

pleasant in Shetland tomorrow. Further south again generally fine

hazy sunshine and quite warm. It will be cooler where the weather

front is lying. The weather front will be around on Friday and will

bring some showery outbreaks of rain which could be heavy for a time but

still quite warm and humid air across the South so could get up to

23 degrees and into the weekend a mixed picture set to continue.

Coming up before 11am: Our top story, more than 13 years

Oscar Pistorious is sentenced to six years for the murder of his

girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. The sentence that I impose on the

accused for the murder of the deceased that is Reeva Steenkamp is

six years imprisonment. More than 13 years

after Tony Blair sent British troops to fight in Iraq,

families of the 179 UK service personnel who died

in the conflict await the findings It shouldn't have taken all those

years. It is the big one for Wales and

Sally is back in France and looking very happy. Yeah, fantastic

atmosphere here in Lyon already. It is the biggest game in Welsh

football history. They are playing in the semifinals of the Euros

tonight. They're playing Portugal and of course, that man, Cristiano

Ronaldo. Here's Joanna Gosling

in the BBC Newsroom The South African athlete,

Oscar Pistorius, has been jailed for six years for the murder

of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. He had initially been convicted

of culpable homicide before being found guilty of the more

serious offence by an appeal Pistorius had been facing

a prescribed minimum jail But the sentencing judge,

Thokozile Masipa, said there were a number of mitigating

factors including the impact Mr Pistorius, please rise. In the

result the sentence that I impose on the accused for the murder of the

deceased that is Reeva Steenkamp is six years imprisonment.

The long-awaited Chilcot report into the invasion of Iraq in 2003

It's chairman, John Chilcot, says he hopes military intervention

on such a scale will not be possible in the future without more careful

The war ended Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, but left 179

British military personnel and hundreds of thousands

Jack Straw, the former Foreign Secretary said

Well, I'm just on the way to read the report, I have not yet seen it,

so you will have to forgive me. I shall be making lots of comments

after I've read the report, but not in advance. Was Jeremy Corbyn right

about the Iraq war? As I said, I've not read the report, with great

respect you have to wait until I've read the report. Was it worth the

tens of thousands of deaths? The Iraqi Health Ministry says

the number of people now known to have been killed in Sunday's

suicide bombing in Baghdad The attack, claimed

by the Islamic State group, is now the deadliest

in the Iraqi capital The first round of votes

for the Conservative leadership took place last night

with the Home Secretary, Theresa May, winning

by a considerable margin. Dr Liam Fox received

the lowest number of votes Stephen Crabb also said he won't put

himself forward for the next round. Both have said they will now back

Theresa May as the next leader There's continued volatility

in financial markets in the aftermath of the UK's vote

to leave the European Union. In Asian trading, the pound

hit a new 31 year low. Analysts say investors are diverting

funds to what are seen as safe havens, principally

government bonds. Protests have taken place in the US

state of Louisiana after a video emerged appearing to show two white

police officers holding down The incident took place

in the State capital, Baton Rouge yesterday

after reports of a man threatening Alton Sterling died of gunshot

wounds to the chest and back. That's a summary of

the latest BBC News. Thank you very much for your

comments as we build up to the publication of the Sir John Chilcot

Report. Hazell said, "I would like to hear a comment on the tens of

thousands of Kurdish people who died of chemical poisoning at the hands

of Saddam Hussein. Does that the count as weapons of mass

destruction?" Ian says, "Blair took us to war without established good

causes and he failed to consider the consequences." Alex text this, "I

went to the second Gulf War. Tony Blair should be in court. I believe

he told lies to the whole country to get us involved in this action."

More of those to come in the next hour of the programme. If you're

getting in touch, use the hashtag Victoria live and you can text as

well, if you do, you will be charged at the standard network rate.

Here's Sally - using your heart and your head -

will Wales beat Portugal tonight and get to the final?

Oh Victoria, don't ask me! That's really cruel! Using my heart,

absolutely, yes. Yes. Using my head, my worry is this - this is the worry

of lots of fans I've spoken to, Cristiano Ronaldo has not really had

a good game yet. He hasn't fulfilled his potential and if there is any

moment for him to do it, it is tonight against Wales. That's not

what my heart is saying, but that's what my head is saying, is that

enough of an on the fence answer for you? It'll do for an on the fence

answer. Sorry. It's all right! We have been hearing from the Wales

camp. I can tell you yesterday the players had an opportunity to have a

look around the stadium which is not, we're in the centre of town,

the stadium is some miles that way, but they have had a chance to have a

look around the stadium, get to know their surroundings and make

themselves feel comfortable ahead of tonight and I tell you what,

wherever they go, Wales are looking comfortable at the moment, but of

course, that star man for them, Gareth Bale, all eyes are on him and

he is feeling just as confident ahead of tonight as he has before

every game so far. I think we under staun maybe not quite how big

because we're really in this bubble here, we are able to see things

online or on the TV, but we are not so much involved in the stuff so it

is difficult to see the magnitude, I suppose of it back at home, but we

understand, we know what's going on, but we just have to concentrate on

ourselves and on our football and doing what we do best and that's

kicking a football around. So yeah, we're just going to keep trying to

do as best we can and trying to make everyone even more proud than they

are and yeah, hopefully then after the tournament we can look back at

the scenes and really gauge what was going on. Well, that's what Gareth

Bale thinks about their progress so far. Even having got to a semifinal,

is an incredible achievement for Wales, just to play here tonight, to

get all this way through, with their history, is a fantastic achievement

for them and I think as the years go on, we might look back on this time

in Welsh football and think, you know, these are the glory days for

them and Chris Coleman has done something, very, very special with

this side, as far as the Football Association of Wales is concerned,

their Chief Executive Jonathan Ford says they can go further. The boys

want to go the whole way. We are in the semifinal of the European

Championships, that's a fantastic success. The first British team

since 1996, we get to the final and be the first British team since

1966, that would be unbelievable, but we're happy with what we've

done. We're not satisfied yet, we don't want to go home!

We know this tournament has been incredibly emotional for the French

side. Lots of them, of course, know Gary Speed very well who was the

manager to died in November 2011. This whole journey for them has been

emotional as they've gone on because of, corks they are the team that

Gary Speed worked with. He changed things significantly for them and

modernised things for the Welsh team. Chris Coleman, of course, has

done lots and lots of work since then, but a short time ago, I spoke

to Gary's dad Roger and he said the thing that strikes him most about

this side is their spirit. They have bonded really, really

well. They are like brothers, very proud, but don't take it away from

Chris, Chris has done a great job and I'm behind him all the way for

what he is doing, he has done brilliant. What would Gary say to

the boys as they walk into the tunnel tonight? Just give your best.

I would love to see the lads after the game if I can, like, you know,

have a wee word with them. I think the lads would probably like to see

you after the game. Hopefully, yeah. What would you say to them? Well

durpks I hope scla LAUGHTER

-- well done, I hope! LAUGHTER

I hope he is able to get in the dressing room and say well done and

congratulate Wales after victory against Portugal in the semifinals

of the European Championships. Wouldn't it be amazing.

It is fair to say that you are shocked by the jail sentence given

to Oscar Pistorious this morning by a judge at a court in Pretoria. Six

years he has been jailed for the murder of his girlfriend, Reeva

Steenkamp. Ben on Twitter says, "Just six years for murder? It

should be 25 plus. The whole case is disgrace." Maria tweets this, "Six

years? That is wrong. A fallen hero, a broken man. Well, Reeva Steenkamp

is no longer here. It is injustice." And Jan on Twitter says, "The judge

obviously liked Oscar Pistorious. The first sentence was inadequate.

This not much better." More reaction from South Africa to

come in the next hour of the programme.

The familiaries of those who died in the Iraq conflict are hoping to get

some answers. In the next half an hour, we will be talking to the

father of one of the soldiers who died. We will be talking to people

from the intelligence and military communities about the lessons that

need to be learned. Jim Reed takes us through the story of Britain's

involvement in the Iraq war. 1998 and 3,000 civilians were

killed. The bodies which litter this town were those of people who ran

out of their houses to escape the gas. Two years later, and then

president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein launched a surprise invasion of

Kuwait. A huge military campaign led by the

US forced him to back down. After the ceasefire, there were chick

sanctions and UN inspectors appointed to oversee the destruction

of chemical weapons. But Saddam Hussein didn't play along and those

inspectors soon left the country. Then there was 9/11, within days

George W Bush had told his generals to plan for a possible war in Iraq.

States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an Axis

of Evil. White House tried to connect Iraq to the 9/11 attacks,

but the links later proved false. Bush hosted Prime Minister Tony

Blair in Texas. Blair's critics say it was at that point he secretly

agreed to go to war, he dethighs that. President Bush went before the

UN to make his case for disarming Iraq by force. The British

Government published its own dossier, saying that Iraq had

weapons of mass destruction that could be ready in 45 minutes. The

intelligence picture they paint is one accumulated over the last four

years, it is extensive, detailed and authoritative. The Government later

admitted that intelligence was faulty and the 45 minute claim was

wrong. By November, weapons inspectors were allowed back, but

Saddam Hussein was thought to be stalling. After one last summit, an

ultimatum was given. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within

48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.

The conflict was over quickly or so it seemed. Then came the aftermath.

It started with looting, it quickly became an organised insurgency.

Saddam Hussein was captured and executed, but that didn't stop the

violence. Pictures emerged showing the abuse

of Iraqi prisoners by American troops. Our country had an

obligation to treat them right, we didn't and that was wrong. Violence

between Shia and Sunni Muslims intensified. The murder rate in

Baghdad tripled. The US solution was the surge, an extra 20,000 troops,

the violence did appear to ease, the number of bombings fell.

In April 2009 the UK ended combat operations. 179 British troops had

lost their lives. The US withdrew two years later. Iraq is not a

perfect place, but we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self

reliant Iraq. Successive Iraqi governments have

struggled to maintain order. So-called Islamic State has taken

control of swathes of the country including the second city, Mosul. As

of today attacks continue across Iraq.

Let's talk now to Tim Collins a retired army officer who served

who was Director of United Nations Institute

for Disarmament Research during the lead up to

The last line of your speech which I was looking at again this morning

let's said bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us

having been there, did that come to pass? It certainly did not. It will

be interesting to see to what extent the Chilcot report focuses on the

historical change this has brought to the region. It has changed the

nature of Iraq, the wars continue to this day, and secondly we handed

this to digital initiative through unintended consequences to the

Iranians. To actually mount the invasion itself we deluded the

Afghan theatre of operations of troops who were on the cusp of

totally defeating the Taliban. We handed them an initiative which they

seized and has brought us to the situation we have in Afghanistan. I

don't know if Chilcot will address those issues but those of the things

history will remember. What planet are you given? I was not aware of

any particular plan posted of eating the Iraqi army, one rather us and

was a we were led to believe we would be

facing an army battalion but we realised soon we were in deep

uncertainty. Did any sort of strategy ever come at the time you

deployed? There was a confusion and clear strategy which we became

quickly aware of from the Iraqis themselves so I surrounded myself

with Iraqi advisers. We had people coming from the division to come and

listen to what they had to say, some of which they enacted and some of

which they didn't but the Iraqis had a plan of what should happen and we,

the West, totally ignored it. And ignored it and shouldn't have done?

We should not have. It was clear and focused that the Iraqi military

leadership, saying we will need you as a respected institution in the

country to help us run this country when Saddam Hussein falls. We would

like you to topple Saddam Hussein. But even if you don't, if anything

happens to Saddam Hussein, we all work with you and through you, the

Iraqi military. Yet when we arrived somebody took the decision to

disband the Iraqi army. There was clearly no clear idea because

initially a retired general was skipped off golf course somewhere in

Florida and sent out there and didn't last long and he was replaced

by Paul Bremer who surrounded himself with experts as they would

say and amongst themselves whatever they got up to, the war they

initiated is going on to this day. At the time of the invasion you are

working for the UN, the director for the Institute of disarmament

research. In the lead up to it what did the UN says was happening in

Iraq? The UN was focused on the issue of weapons of mass

destruction. Since 1991 the UN had had inspectors in until 1998. Almost

everything ever found was dismantled by the UN. The UN was very well

aware there was no more nuclear weapons, or any nuclear weapons

programme, and the International Atomic Energy Agency had supervised

the destruction of everything. Chemical weapons, almost everything

was gone, the UN was clear about what was left, very little and

certainly no imminent threat. Biological weapons were the big

uncertainty. From 1998-2002 there were no inspections because of the

impasse between the UN and Saddam Hussein's government. At the end of

2002 after four years of analysis, for analysis of what they understood

and did not, they went to all the places the biological weapons could

have been. They never found any documents showing that biological

weapons had been destroyed, the Iraqi expert said it had. It turns

out probably that it had and those documents are still missing but they

may well show up. I think what was clear was that the UN inspectors

found long-range missiles which should not have been there which

gave us a lot of confidence in their abilities, to look into places and

find things nobody knew were there. So the fact they didn't find

anything I think, and we all felt I think at the time that that should

have weighed heavily in the intelligence assessments. But

actually what people drew from that was that the inspectors hadn't find

them get or had not been looking hard enough. Exactly, if you talk to

Hans Blix or Mohammed El Baradi, they had gone in there with their

eyes open trying to find what they could, they had a good grasp of

everything and they could not find it. Hans Blix said I am really

beginning to think that these things are not there. It was a fascinating

time and such a pity that we didn't give the UN inspectors who were very

good that extra time to really be certain because the uncertainty is

what drove the misrepresentation of the facts. Thank you both very much

and thank you for your patience this morning.

179 British military personnel lost their lives in Iraq -

and for years their families have searched for answers

Many of those families are at the moment locked

in a briefing room where they've been given access to the report

We're going to speak now to Bill Stewardson,

whose son Alex Green was killed in Iraq in 2008.

Thank you very much for talking to us today. You are not in London for

the release of this report, tell our audience why? Nobody asked me to

come down, nobody invited me and I can just get on a train and appear

can I? How do you feel about that? Quite annoyed to be honest. I don't

think it would have pushed the boundaries to include me that you

would have to ask other people about that. Can you tell our audience what

happened to your son in 2008? Absolutely, he was escorting a

convoy and he took a bullet under his armpits I believe and because he

was wearing his armour it ricocheted around inside, didn't miss much and

he never survived. Can you recall the moment you were told what

happened? To be honest, due to logistical problems it was botched,

I was told over the telephone which is never a good and I did not see

anybody from the military. This was on the Saturday, until the Monday.

And when they finally spoke to you face-to-face, tell us about the

nature of the conversation if you don't mind? That's a difficult one,

I don't actually remember it with sharp clarity but the details were

explained and the practical things cropped up and overrode everything.

It wasn't very good at all. Tony Blair wrote to you after your son 's

death, what did you say? It was a personal message written in his own

hand which I don't think it would be fair to go into that but it was a

nice message. He spoke about having children himself and he understood

the severity of the loss. I would rather not discuss a personal

message if that's OK. Absolutely, absolutely. I know you had a

conversation with Alex when he joined the Army, a frank

conversation I think? Yeah, I will tell you the exact words, I was in

my flat and he came to see me one day and said look, dad, I am joining

the Army. I actually said to him, Alex, if you want to brush the

street, brush the street, if you want to drive a bus driver bus, if

you want to play for Everton drive the bus. Which got a laugh. But you

are supposed to support your children and I did then and I do

now. What is it you want to get from this report today? This whole thing

has been blown out of all proportion into some sort of media circus. I am

not particularly bothered about getting Tony Blair's head on a

stick, people being sent to the Hague which is being bandied about

and is quite ridiculous. But if it turns out that some individual has

acted illegally they should be taken to task like I would be you would be

by your employer is. I don't actually read any more into it than

that. I have severe doubts about whatever is going to come out in

that 2.6 million Word document. You cannot possibly touch upon highly

classified to medication at the time. I see the whole thing as

pointless to be honest. What about the people who say war is the last

resort which is why we have two and pick the decisions which led up to

that? Absolutely, without question. I think the whole thing has boiled

down again to whether weapons of mass destruction, yes or no? I don't

see that as fair, I think the question to be was it reasonable to

make an assumption we were under threat based upon the information

which was on the table? Like anybody else would want to go through that

process on any decision, suddenly Chuter the same voices sing the same

things for their own ends, it's gone. I think the whole thing is

quite ridiculous Victoria. So you definitely don't think the British

nation was lied to about the WMD, it was an honestly held belief at the

time by those in power? Lets get something straight, Tony Blair

didn't wake up one Tuesday morning and think let's go and invade Iraq.

A long process was gone through, there were many advisers, other

nations took part in that decision, the whole of parliament voted for

the action to be taken and I am absolutely staggered that this has

been hung around the neck of one person. If the report does criticise

the decision-making process and in particular Tony Blair, and sure it

was made an weak evidence or poor evidence or even false evidence,

would your views towards him and others change? Not based on this

media circus which is going on. It would not. However. I do hope and

trust that in the UK the appropriate procedures would be followed if any

reckless decisions are taken. But I still don't believe that. Can I ask

you about Alex, what was he like? He was a regular council house kids who

grew up in a deprived area, he loved football, he loved getting covered

in mud, he loved riding his bike and climbing trees. He didn't like

bullying, he was bullied himself at school and he would always go and

help someone if they had a problem, like most young people who are brave

enough to put on a British modern uniform. We are grateful for your

time today, thank you for talking to us about your son. Thank you. Bill

Stewardson whose son Alex was killed in Iraq in 2008.

I was born and brought up in Baghdad.

I have really good, happy memories as a child.

My dad was an Army officer and he retired just after the Iraqi

invasion to Kuwait in 1990 and my mum was a housewife.

Her job was just look after us and look after the house and make

sure we do good in school, do our homework, yeah.

Growing up in Baghdad, you go to primary school

and high school and then you get your equivalent to A level

I went to study business administration.

My dad was Sunni and my mum was Shia and at the time

I generally had no idea, what does it mean to be a Sunni

and what does it mean to be a Shia and that my parents were actually

1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, things changed a lot.

I remember you'd see a lot of people begging on the street.

Building up to the 2003 war, the invasion, we knew

We knew what happened 9/11 but again, the media

All that we saw on TV was people protesting.

I remember seeing people in London protesting.

The night, I still remember the night, when they hit,

I remember everyone waking up in a bit of a panic.

I genuinely, by then, accepted the worst.

And I was really young, but I think we'd been through a lot

as a nation and I genuinely went back to sleep.

I remember my mum worried and my dad reading some Koran as he was scared,

scared for us more than anything, and I just went back to bed.

I got told off next day my mum said, do you have any feelings,

But I genuinely didn't care at that point.

I think my sister was petrified, my mum and dad were really scared

because you never know and it was so close

So then we put just the basics we could carry in a car and we drove

up north to North Iraq where the Kurds were.

And it was protected because the Kurds were

We stayed there until after the 9th of April and we came back.

And then we started seeing Americans on the streets.

It was amazing, because we'd never seen foreign people really.

I'd never seen a foreign person before I'd seen Americans.

They were trooping in the streets, making sure.

People were really happy because Saddam is gone

but the biggest mistake they've done at the time

is when they demolished the Iraqi army, so we had a lot

Some people thought it was fine to do whatever they wanted to do.

They can steal, they can kill, they can rape, they can harm others,

because in Saddam's time, no one would dare to do any of that.

You'd go to work or to uni and see people dead on the street

and you'd think, probably this person did nothing,

just because they disagreed with your background,

with your colour, because you looked Sunni or Shia.

You'd go to uni and you heard someone had been killed

When we had the new government, my first job was, I was employed

by the UN in the constitution committee to help the new Iraqi

government to write our new Constitution and it was amazing,

such a sense of pride, like, this is our Constitution.

Genuinely, we were so naive, we thought that was going to make

My job was really good and I enjoyed it, but it was very high risk.

At the time, when we started getting threats, they had a massive movement

against people working with the Iraqi government.

I remember having a letter through the door saying,

"You are betraying Iraq and if you keep doing it,

I think the same day, my family decided to move.

Well, I worked in the Green Zone in our new elected parliament

I think there were seven checkpoints to get into your office

They had the dogs out, sniffing around the car, they had a mirror.

So they did take a long time, because there's a queue of cars

leaving at the same time, so I did get home a bit late,

later than usual, and when I got home, our house was attacked

and I can see the Iraqi forces, police cars there, and I knew

My neighbour, who was a really lovely lady, she knew me.

The minute I came out the car, she took me in the house

You didn't know who to trust and who not to trust and she just

took me in so no-one would know that I arrived safe and I was fine.

That night, she packed a bag for me and I was on the first flight out

After that day, there was nothing left to stay

I had a feeling of, we are going to build it

and do good and that day, it was all gone.

Well, I genuinely think they tried to help.

I don't want to think it was the oil or petroleum.

I genuinely want to think that all these troops who came

and lost their lives to free us from Saddam,

that is where the main subject of their movement was.

No, just turned the news on and see how bad Iraq is now.

I'd never dare to say Saddam was amazing.

Saddam wasn't, but compared to now, Iraq was a million times

If I can have my life back, if I can have my life back to one

day before everything has happened, I'd go back to Iraq now without

Well, let's speak to an Iraqi living in Baghdad and has been living in

Iraq throughout the Iraq war. Thank you very much for talking to us.

What was it like living there at the start of the war? First, I want to

say that I'm really sorry for the story before me, for the lady and I

wish her a better life. Living in Iraq during the huge war like 2003

was a very terrible time. When this war happened everybody was talking

about many scenarios, what will happen, how can we face Americans

and Saddam's army and Saddam was a man who can't do anything to get the

victory to his personal glory. So people were really feeling bad about

many of rumours, about many broadcasting from the radio, many,

news can come through ray Radio and other broadcasting waves, we were

getting the signal, but in the end, the war happened and we've heard the

sounds of attacks and bombs. It was a very horrible, everywhere in

Baghdad we were hearing that sound. So attacks, air strikes, bombs

falling on our city, so we were just asking God to survive because we did

not even leave the house or leave the city out of Baghdad. We said it

is OK we'll live in this situation in 1991 during the desert storm or

the second Gulf War and we are living it the same today. Finally,

even the weather was really bad in that month in the 20 days of the

war, there was no electricity and no services, all we found in these days

as the, it was a very tragic period from our history and from our ages

as teenagers in that period in 2003. How do you feel about the war now?

Unfortunately, we were thinking about a better future after Saddam

statue fell in the square, but we found ourselves in a worse situation

today. Yes, there is a little bit of freedom, using the technology and

using the satellite and using the cellphones and internet, but the

worst thing and the thing which we cannot stand more is facing the

terrorist attacks and you know, Iraq has begun thinking about not all the

terrorist attacks and bombs are coming from Isis or the extremists

because we are thinking about many people from inside the Government

are doing such things against Iraqis. The situation today is very

bad. We lost many hundreds of thousands, sometimes Iraqis think

about the number of Iraqis who were lost after 2003 are more than what

they have lost in all of the period of Saddam's era. About 250,000

people were killed during the war and we don't know, one million Iraqi

people killed after the 2003 and I think it is not the future we wanted

when we wanted Saddam to be gone. Thank you very much for talking to

us. Thank you for your time this morning live from Baghdad. Here are

your messages. Neil on text says, "Tony Blair should be charged with

war crimes and his assets taken as proceeds from crime and used to

support the families of those killed." Dawn texted, "Tony Blair is

an honest man in my opinion. He was given information from intelligence

sources to say there were weapons of mass destruction. He made a rational

decision upon that to protect us. How can Tony Blair be at fault? He

is not the British intelligence officer. He acted as he thought best

to protect this nation." A couple of you commenting on Bill stewards son

whose son Alex Green died in Iraq, serving in irlack, he was a British

soldier. Graham tweets, "The dad on at Victoria Live is the definition

of a plain speaking Yorkshireman, compelling viewing from a man who

lost his son in Iraq." Dan says, "Incredible interview with the

father of a soldier killed in Iraq. Well said, sir." Thank you for

those. Keep them coming in. Part of it is expected to focus

on the shortcomings in equipment The Snatch Landrover was used

by British forces in Iraq, but it was criticised for not

being well-enough protected, leaving James Longman is here

with the story. These Snatch Land Rovers were never

intended for Iraq, they were designed for Northern Ireland, they

weren't protective enough from the kind of attacks in Iraq. A number of

British personnel were killed, 27 of the military men and women who died

were killed in the Snatch Land Rovers and they were called by the

troops who used them mobile coffins. The families of those men and women

that were killed in them have been asking questions about why was it

they were being used and in 2013 there was a landmark proceeding

which allowed three of the families to actually sue the MoD for breach

of Human Rights and negligence. That was land marked because up until no

one has been able to sue the MoD on these sorts of grounds with regards

to the Armed Forces. We have been speaking to the families of and one

of those families is that of Private Lee Ellis and he died in February

2006 on patrol in Southern Iraq. He was 23. He was from Manchester. He

lived in there with his fiancee and their young daughter. I will read an

extract from what his Commanding Officer said about him when he died.

He said he was bright, enthusiastic and immensely popular, Private Ellis

displayed the qualities of a first plas paratrooper. His strength of

character and dedication were reflected in his dedication to

overcome injury." We spoke to his sister Carla Ellis about what she is

hoping from the Chilcot inquiry today.

I wanted to know why my brother had died. I wanted to know why he was in

a Snatch Land Rover, why he wasn't in a Warrior? Why he was in Iraq? I

wanted to know his life was valuable. I wanted people to be

honest with me and upfront and ease my grief, you know, because I was

grieving and I wanted answers and it shouldn't have taken ten years to

get the answers to teal me my brother's life was more valuable

than a budget and him being in shoddy equipment. So how long were

the vehicles in operation and why did it take so long for anything to

be done about them? Well, that goes to the Hart of this issue and that's

what families are asking today. In 2005, to give you some idea of how

long they were in circulation, in 2005 was the deadliest year for

troops using these sorts of vehiclesment 12 of them were blown

up. And 19 soldiers killed. Defence chiefs decided to start to roll out

other kinds of vehicles and by the end of 2006, there was the masstive,

a heavily armoured bus, but that came too late for Lee Ellis and not

enough for Lance Corporal Redpath who died in August 2007 whilst on

patrol in Basra. I'm going to read you an extract of what his

Commanding Officer said about him. He said Lance Corporal Redpath was a

well-known character, well-known for his cheeky approach. He was a

delight to have working in the balancele group head quarters, not

only did he work hard to get inside the head of numerous factionks, but

he brighten up the place. He always had a joke to tell." We spoke to his

father Colin about what he is hoping. Well, he was on a convoy to

Kuwait to pick up supplies. And they were on their way back. They were

about 70 miles from Basra, I believe. They were coming to a

crossroads with a group of houses. And one of the, because he was in

the lead Land Rover, one of the Land Rovers further back, I believe that

the guys in the Land Rover actually avoided, are tried to avoid the

house because they thought it was suspicious. The next thing a

roadside bomb and him and his colleague died. The officer was in

there as well, he was injured, but survived. There wasn't much left of

the Land Rover I'm afraid and my son died instantly.

He was in a Land Rover, not much armour on it. Apparently at his

inquest armoured vehicles were requested for that mission but none

were available. I always think, it was the lead Land Rover, you'd think

it would be really armoured, or an arm for your call but it wasn't to

be on this occasion. -- or an armoured vehicle. I am not saying

they would still be alive even in an armoured your call but the chances

would obviously be greatly improved. -- in an armoured vehicle. And he

paid the price. For years politicians and prominent army

officers were saying they were not fit for purpose. They had been there

a long time in Iraq, six, seven years. And we still didn't have all

the proper equipment. I think most of the families in my position just

want closure on it. If there were failings on equipment, which, you

know, it does look likely because there are examples. We just want

closure of it and the MOD to at least perhaps meet us or at least

see yeah, there were failings. These are what the failings where and

hopefully they will correct it in the future. So it saves lives in the

future. My son was in the Army, he had to go where he was posted like

thousands before him. First World War, Second World War. He was doing

his job. But all I am saying is give our boys and girls the tools to do

the job. Don't sell them short. Because all I know is that if I was

Prime Minister I would have made dam surely had the best. It is family

like these who will be looking for hamsters today from the report to

see if they are also able to bring proceedings against the Ministry of

Defence. Thank you James. The Chilcot report is published at 11am,

the most comprehensive coverage here on BBC news throughout the day.

Quite a lot of comments about the sentence given to Oscar Pistorius

this morning for murdering his girlfriend, fair to say a lot of you

think six years in jail is just not enough. On Twitter one viewer saying

the sentence for Oscar Pistorius is disgraceful. Murder is murder and

should mean life. It seems as though the judge was taking him into

account more than the deceased. And another saying they are so story for

the Steenkamp family who have had so many years of torment. -- there are

so sorry. Tonight Wales play their biggest football match ever, they

meet Portugal in the semifinal of the Euro 2016 championship.

Thousands of fans are heading for the game lost tens of thousands will

watch it from the fans on in Cardiff. Most eyes will be on the

star players, Gareth Bale and Cristiano Ronaldo. They are more

used to being team-mates than competing against one another. Here

is a film to see how they compare. # Memories, like the

corners of my mind. # So take a look

at what you've done. You're such a romantic hero, the way

you dress and look yourself over. It's no wonder you would ponder that

preening image of # I don't pop my cork

for every man I see. Let's talk to various Welsh fans,

Vince, it looks so dark, I can tell her you are, hello. Hello, we are

just driving through a tunnel! We have come to you at the perfect

moment! We have other fans, where are you? INAUDIBLE

Thank you for talking to us. We have another couple of guys who are

currently on their way to France with various friends. Not can Wales

beat Portugal, will they? I think we will, it will be a tough game. We

are on a way from veteran airport to Lyon. We are at the border at the

French Alps at the moment. We are all very excited and I think the

mood is positive. Absolutely, we are very excited, the adrenaline is

pumping. We are all thrilled and excited to be here and to have

tickets. It's very exciting and looking forward to getting to Lyon

and being part of this great occasion and history of Welsh

football. Events, what do you anticipate tonight?

We have got a very good team spirit at the moment. Portugal have a lot

of experience and I think it will be a tough game but I think we've just

got enough at the moment to beat them by a goal, 1-0, 2-1. I'm

confident on the result but I am nervous. I'm not surprised. Are you

nervous? I am so excited, it's hard to believe. Talking about dear to

dream, I think it's time for best to believe. Who would have thought, so

many near misses in the past, getting this close, even if we lose

tonight they have still succeeded. They can do any wrong in our eyes,

this is beyond belief. Chris Coleman has been absolutely magnificent, do

you also paid tribute to Gary speed before him, John Toshack before him?

Brian Flynn for bringing the youngsters through before him. Fair

play to Chris Coleman, had a bad start but he has ridden it out, he's

got a great team spirit, I wouldn't even say team spirit, they are a

gang of mates. What ambassadors they are, Gareth Bale should run for

Prime Minister. Do you fear Ronaldo or do you think, Portugal never

really do it as a team do they? They don't. To be honest like Chris

Coleman said we have our own Ronaldo in Gareth Bale. I think he has been

much more an ambassador to Wales than Ronaldo has. That in itself has

filled not only the team but the nation with confidence. I think we

can take that confidence into tonight and we should not be afraid

of someone like Ronaldo. We've got this far, we have played better than

Portugal have so far I think. We have won in 90 minutes, all our

games and they haven't won any in 90 minutes. That's true but Portugal

have played pretty badly and are still in the semifinal and that must

give you pause for thought? It is a concern but having said that I think

the team spirit the guys have shown throughout the campaign, the

qualifiers, and the past couple of weeks, I think that's what

everyone's been most impressed about. The camaraderie, the

togetherness, the strap line together stronger could not be more

true. Yes it's a concern, they are star player has not performed to his

ability in the tournament but we do have our own star player in Gareth

Bale. We all know this Welsh team isn't just about him, it's about all

the team and I think that will get us over the line. All about the team

and the fans. The fence, what would it mean for the team and to Wales to

get to the final? It would mean the world, we have more than herself on

the map at the moment but to win a final in our first final in 50

years, especially in the modern game. When they got to the World Cup

in 1958 it was an amateur game. Football is not only universal and

global INAUDIBLE It will boost the economy of Wales

and are standing on the map throughout the whole world, the

whole world watches football whereas years ago it didn't. For a nation of

our size might a bit like the story of Leicester City, it will give

every small nation hope that they could also do it as well. Like

England for example! Let me ask you, what would it mean if Wales got to

the final? It it's put us on the map. The fans have been great,

everyone seems to love the Welsh fans, there has been no trouble,

great singing. We know how we behave at rugby matches but I went to the

qualifying matches and I have never been in an atmosphere like that

before. Let's say you beat Portugal and are in the final and it's

against France or Germany, would you think anything could happen? That's

the thing, we are in dreamland at the moment. To start with we were

just happy to be in France and now we've come this far I think anything

could happen. It's cliche but it could ring true. If we do get to the

final it would be a huge occasion for all of the Welsh all around the

world. I am just proud of the boys and how they have conducted

themselves. The fans have been incredible, this is my first trip to

France, or the other boys have been before during this campaign. Had a

great time, made amazing friends and great memories. It would be just, an

incredible achievement if we got to the final and dear I see it if we

won it would be even better. Thank you so much, enjoy, enjoy, enjoy all

of you. Thank you for coming on the programme. That's it for today, Sir

John Chilcot is about to release his report into the Iraq war and then

brown is at the Queen Elizabeth conference Centre in London. -- Ben

brown. Good morning from Westminster, you

join