in israel as the uk's diplomats in israel as the uk's foreign office updates its travel advice amid fears of an attack by iran after an israeli strike on the iranian consulate in syria. the inquiry into the post office it scandal will today hear from adam crozier, who became the royal mail's chief executive in 2003. a warning that the catastrophic hunger crisis in sudan is even worse than feared according to doctors. we will bring you their footage from the country's darfur region. sir keir starmer says the labour government would aim to increase defence spending to 2.5% of gdp, matching goals are set out by chancellorjeremy hunt. we begin this hour in the middle east where american diplomats and their families in israel have been told not to travel outside of tel aviv,

jerusalem and be'er—sheva. the us said it had made the order out of an abundance of caution due to fears about a possible attack by iran. earlier the israel defence minister yoav gallant told his us counterpart that israel would respond appropriately if it is directly attacked by iran. washington continues to try to dissuade iran from launching a retaliatory strike following an attack on the iranian consulate in syria last week. i spoke to hugo bachega earlier. for days we have been talking about those warnings that have come from american officials saying the iranian response is a matter of when and not if. i think the most dramatic warning came from president biden who said a day ago that the iranians were preparing a significant attack. with that warning came also a threat that the americans would respond if there was an attack from iran on israel. and i think there have been some

reports quoting unnamed american officials saying that this could happen in the next few days. so we don't know how this attack will be, what this possible attack will look like. the iranians have been saying they will retaliate the attack that happened last week in syria was humiliating for the iranians. it hit an iranian diplomatic compound in damascus, and it killed several iranian military advisers, including a top iranian general. i think the iranians need to be seen to be giving a response, to be doing something. i think the fear here is that the iranians could launch an attack on israel. the israelis have been saying any kind of attack that comes from iran would lead to an israeli response. we have seen that iran has been using its proxies across the region to carry out attacks, including hezbollah in lebanon, which has been attacking israel on a daily basis. but what the americans are saying is that this is likely to be different, it's likely to come

from iran itself. so the warnings are there, but we still don't know how this is going to play out. we have also been hearing from israel's defence minister yoav gallant. what has he been saying? again, he had a phone call with the american defence secretary. he said that any kind of attack that comes from iran would lead to an israeli response. so there have been those concerns. this is obviously something people here in israel are talking about. a senior american general has been sent to israel to have conversations with top military officials to talk about the possibility of this iranian attack and an israeli response. again, there is an anxiety and a concern but there is no panic here. there is no run on shops or banks. this is obviously something that people are talking about, that has been discussed

on television, in newspapers, but there isn't panic here. but everyone is waiting to see how the iranians are going to respond and whether this response will come in the next few days. hugo bachega in jerusalem. it's not clear how iran might respond. it could come from proxies in the area. the heavy armed hezbollah has been launching attacks on israel from the border by lebanon. hamas is less close to tehran than hezbollah but it has had a long marriage of convenience with iran. tehran has provided funding,

weapons and expertise but iran was not warned in advance about the october seven attacks. there are other groups in iran, syria, bahrain and yemen. the houthis yemeni group had announced they were firing drones and missiles at israel recently. you may remember the pictures from last november when the houthis expanded the role by attacking shipping in the southern red sea saying they were targeting vessels belonging to israelis or heading to israeli ports although some of the targeted ships have no known israeli links. there are warnings that catastrophic hunger crisis in sudan is even worse than feared. the medical charity doctors without borders has screened tens of thousands of children and women in a displaced peoples camp in north darfur state. it found a third were malnourished, double the threshold for a nutrition emergency. a year of war has had a devastating humanitarian impact

across the country especially in the darfur region. the bbc has managed to get rare footage from there, our correspondent barbara plett usher now reports. viewers may find some images in this report distressing. crying. the youngest casualties of sudan's war are often not victims of bombs and bullets. this paediatric hospital in northern darfur is a front line in the country's hunger crisis. signs of malnutrition are stark. it's difficult for outsiders to get access to the region. we worked with a local cameraman to film these images. the son of this woman is getting emergency nutrition after bouts of diarrhoea and malaria. "we just don't have enough food here," she says. "we're farmers but aren't able to harvest enough now and there's no other income. medicine is hard to get." in the next bed, another woman

is caring for six—month—old twins, slowly recovering from weeks of dysentery. doctors treated malnutrition here before the war. much more so now. translation: the numbers have doubled. _ every month, and the next month, the numbers increase, despite the fact that we in northern darfur, we had a system, a full nutritional programme, which continued. but it lapsed because of the war. it's a refuge of last resort, but those who make it here are the lucky ones. in the nearby zamzam camp for displaced people, they queue forfood. there isn't much of that, nor of clean water or health care. illnesses that could once be treated now kill. one child here dies every two hours — so says the charity doctors without borders, the last international humanitarians still on the ground. they found that one third

of the camp's children under the age of five are malnourished, and so are their mothers. this woman is living that pain. she lost three children in four months. one was three years old, another two, another was six months. translation: i couldn't afford to take them to hospital. - the pharmacy demanded too much money. my first child died on the way home from there and the second child died after six days. the baby fell sick and died three days later. people are sick and hungry. the displaced people have nojobs. zamzam is one of sudan's oldest and largest camps, formed by those who fled ethnic violence in darfur 20 years ago, so already fragile. but the latest war between the army and its paramilitary rivals has displaced more than 8 million people, blocked aid, shut down the economy. these images showjust

how grave the situation is in other parts of darfur. a regional emergency worker sent them to us from the southern and central states. the boy's mother pleading for help to feed her children. anything, she says, even something small. aid agencies say without much greater access and more food supplies, that won't happen. i spoke to doctors without borders at their nairobi headquarters. we have a nutritional crisis. it's a catastrophic nutritional crisis. the children that we screened in the camp of zamzam is the tip of the iceberg. we are talking aboutjust one camp. so it could be much worse. it could be much worse, yes. this little boy may live, but if the war stretches into another year, many, many other children will die. barbara plett usher, bbc news, nairobi.

you.the family of one of the people oj simpson was aquitted of killing have described the death of the american football star as "no great loss". on thursday oj simpson died of cancer at the age of 76. one of america's most notorious figures, oj simpson was cleared of murdering his ex—wife and herfriend ron goldman in 1994 after a murder trial which gripped the us and the world. his acquittal came after a police car chase when oj simpson fled on the day he was due to turn himself in. both the car chase and the murder trial were watched by tens of millions around the world at a time when rolling news was in its infancy. david willis reports from los angeles. fred goldman told us media that the death of oj simpson was a reminder of the years without his son. we will have more reaction in a moment but first david willis reports from los angeles. he was clearly the best running back of the �*70s.

oj simpson set records on the american football field that remain unbeaten to this day. he parlayed that popularity into a career in hollywood, appearing in more than 20 films. but it all came crashing down when the former icon was accused of killing his ex—wife, nicole, and a friend, ron goldman, in a jealous rage. this is one of those scenes that would only happen, honestly, here in southern california. tonight oj simpson is a fugitive. his refusal to surrender, prompting a freeway chase featured live on american tv and paving the way for what local media dubbed the trial of the century. he'll be remembered for also creating reality television. it was the oj simpson pursuit. and my coverage, you know, with that type of, you know, over 100 million people watching, that changed everything. and it created, gave birth to reality tv. the trial transfixed america.

soap opera and circus sideshow rolled into one. it ended in simpson's acquittal. although a civil trial later found him liable for the deaths and ordered him to pay $33 million to the victims' relatives. they've seen very little of that and now intend to go after the family estate in a bid to achievejustice. in a statement, ron goldman's father, fred, and his sister kim, said that with oj simpson's death, the hope for true accountability had ended. whilst alan dershowitz, an adviser to simpson's so—called dream team of defence lawyers, said the trial had helped expose the racial divisions in america, but conceded that simpson had left a mixed legacy. and the olympic athlete, caitlynjenner, whose ex—wife kris was married to simpson defense lawyer robert kardashian, tweeted the simple message, "good riddance." a confrontation in a las vegas hotel 17 years ago led to oj simpson serving nine years injailfor armed

robbery, cementing possibly the most dramatic fall from grace in modern american history. david willis, bbc news, los angeles. for more on the reaction i spoke earlier to cbs news correspondent naomi ruchim. for many americans the reaction to oj simpson's death has been as complicated as his legacy. some say they are not shedding any tears over the star football player and accused murderer. while others say they are devastated by his death. he was nicknamed thejuice and burst onto the national acene is a star onto the national scene as a star running back winning the 1968 heisman trophy before going onto a hall of fame nfl career so he had a lot of fans.

off the field he was a commentator, pitchman, film star. but the case and not guilty verdict has divided the country to this day. in interviews after the death was announced, some said they believed he was guilty of the crime. others say the jury has spoken and he was acquitted and that's the end of it. polling from 2017, the year oj simpson was released from prison for a separate crime, shows that most americans at the time did believe he was guilty of the 1994 murders. 71% believe he did it, a slight increase from the 67% who thought so back in october 1995. however, there is a bigger difference among black americans. while 69% believed he was guilty at the time, the 2017 poll showed that black americans were more evenly divided them. evenly divided then. i was reading that the family of one of the victims wants to now file a claim to get some of his estate. tell me more about that. in a statement, ronald goldman's father and sister said the following. they said the news of ron's killer passing away is a mixed bag

of complicated emotions and reminds us that the journey through grief is not linear. for three decades we tirelessly pursued justice for ron and nicole and despite a civil judgment and his confection, in if i did it, the book, the hope for true accountability has ended. we will continue to advocate for the rights of all victims and survivors, ensuring our voices are heard within and beyond the courtroom. you can tell those families still have a mission there, although the one you mentioned is a monetary mission. they made it clear in their statement after his death that their goal really is to make sure that all survivors of violence and victims of violence get their voices heard, whether it's in the courtroom or beyond. and they too are not shedding tears over the death but do wish there had been some accountability at the very end. naomi ruchim. here on bbc news, let's bring you

more now and what has been described as one of the worst miscarriages of justice in uk legal history. the post office scandal. an inquiry is examining how the faulty it system known as horizon led to hundreds of people who run post offices being wrongly convicted of theft and fraud. former post office director alan cooke is currently giving evidence to the inquiry. the second paragraph. — evidence to the inquiry. the second paragraph. i _ evidence to the inquiry. the second paragraph. i am — evidence to the inquiry. the second paragraph, i am sure _ evidence to the inquiry. the second paragraph, i am sure i'm _ evidence to the inquiry. the second paragraph, i am sure i'm going - evidence to the inquiry. the second paragraph, i am sure i'm going to l paragraph, i am sure i'm going to get this wrong, i think it's a particular post office branch, and you can see a wry smile, we have got that wrong. this refers to the prosecution of noel thomas, a core participant in these proceedings. it says the subpostmaster pleaded guilty to false accounting by inflating his cash account by

approximately £48,000. it goes on to describe the case. he will have seen this at the time, wouldn't you? yes. the screen — this at the time, wouldn't you? yes. the screen has _ this at the time, wouldn't you? yes. the screen hasjust _ this at the time, wouldn't you? yes. the screen hasjust gone _ this at the time, wouldn't you? yes. the screen hasjust gone blank. £48.000. — the screen hasjust gone blank. £48,000, that's a significant loss to the business, isn't it? yes. and the idea of— to the business, isn't it? yes. and the idea of these _ to the business, isn't it? yes. and the idea of these investigation reports is that you get them on a monthly basis, is that right? yes. it enables the _ monthly basis, is that right? yes. it enables the executive - monthly basis, is that right? yes. it enables the executive team to trace through from the point of the losses found right through to the outcome of the case, correct? yes. is it not the — outcome of the case, correct? yes. is it not the case _ outcome of the case, correct? yes. is it not the case that _ outcome of the case, correct? yes. is it not the case that while - outcome of the case, correct? yes. is it not the case that while this case was going through and you received updates on it, at some point you would have been told that a decision had been made to prosecute?—

a decision had been made to rosecute? ~ ~ ., ., , prosecute? well, i think not really. i don't think— prosecute? well, i think not really. i don't think that's _ prosecute? well, i think not really. i don't think that's the _ prosecute? well, i think not really. i don't think that's the case. - prosecute? well, i think not really. i don't think that's the case. these | i don't think that's the case. these cases_ i don't think that's the case. these cases were — i don't think that's the case. these cases were reported on. as i say, that the _ cases were reported on. as i say, that the terminology, and it is used in that_ that the terminology, and it is used in that case — that the terminology, and it is used in that case that went to court... it went— in that case that went to court... it went to — in that case that went to court... it went to court, the post office made the decision in the case went to court. .,, ., , ., �* to court. those two things don't ruite no to court. those two things don't quite go together. _ to court. those two things don't quite go together. it _ to court. those two things don't quite go together. it went - to court. those two things don't quite go together. it went to . to court. those two things don't i quite go together. it went to court and i_ quite go together. it went to court and i had — quite go together. it went to court and i had not assumed that we had madam _ and i had not assumed that we had madam we — and i had not assumed that we had made... we might have wanted it to id made... we might have wanted it to go to— made... we might have wanted it to go to court— made... we might have wanted it to go to court but i didn't realise we have _ go to court but i didn't realise we have the — go to court but i didn't realise we have the power back then to take it to court. _ have the power back then to take it to court, regardless of what anybody else might _ to court, regardless of what anybody else might think. if to court, regardless of what anybody else might think.— else might think. if post office limited had — else might think. if post office limited had been _ else might think. if post office limited had been dealing - else might think. if post office limited had been dealing with| else might think. if post office i limited had been dealing with the cps or the police to handle these types of cases, would that have been described within post office limited that cps was a stakeholder? about

that cps was a stakeholder? about 3096 of them _ that cps was a stakeholder? about 3096 of them went _ that cps was a stakeholder? about 3096 of them went down _ that cps was a stakeholder? about 3096 of them went down that - that cps was a stakeholder? about 30% of them went down that route, i now understand. i never saw a differentiation, nobody ever... you know. _ differentiation, nobody ever... you know. it _ differentiation, nobody ever... you know, it wasn't, who decided? it went— know, it wasn't, who decided? it went to — know, it wasn't, who decided? it went to court. i now understand, i sat and _ went to court. i now understand, i sat and worked out the other evening thatiust _ sat and worked out the other evening thatjust under 30% went sat and worked out the other evening that just under 30% went that route. so that just under 30% went that route. 50 the _ that just under 30% went that route. so the majority were the post office making _ so the majority were the post office making that call but i had not appreciated that at that time, until late in_ appreciated that at that time, until late in 2009. we appreciated that at that time, until late in 20051— late in 2009. we will come to late in 2009 shortly. _ late in 2009. we will come to late in 2009 shortly. how— late in 2009. we will come to late in 2009 shortly. how do _ late in 2009. we will come to late in 2009 shortly. how do you - late in 2009. we will come to late in 2009 shortly. how do you think| in 2009 shortly. how do you think that prosecutions were overseen in the post office? br; that prosecutions were overseen in the post office?— the post office? by the investigations - the post office? by the investigations team. i the post office? by the l investigations team. and the post office? by the - investigations team. and so, is the post office? by the _ investigations team. and so, is it effectively _ investigations team. and so, is it effectively that... _ investigations team. and so, is it effectively that... is _ investigations team. and so, is it effectively that... is your - investigations team. and so, is it| effectively that... is your evidence effectively that... is your evidence effectively that... is your evidence effectively that the investigation team and security team maybe round

the investigations, but at board level there was no oversight? it level there was no oversight? it reported up through the operations director~ _ reported up through the operations director. but we wouldn't have been progressing each case at board level because _ progressing each case at board level because the organisation was just too large — because the organisation was just too large. it wouldn't be looking at individual— too large. it wouldn't be looking at individual cases. if something notable — individual cases. if something notable happened, and that one was notable. _ notable happened, and that one was notable. i_ notable happened, and that one was notable, i guess, and it got its whole — notable, i guess, and it got its whole paragraph. but when i would have read _ whole paragraph. but when i would have read that, i would have seen that the _ have read that, i would have seen that the postmaster pleaded guilty. my concern now, i understand is that postmasters were being advised to plead _ postmasters were being advised to plead guilty even if they thought they weren't to reduce... we are lookin: they weren't to reduce... we are looking at _ they weren't to reduce... we are looking at the — they weren't to reduce... we are looking at the decision _ they weren't to reduce... we are looking at the decision on - looking at the decision on prosecution.— looking at the decision on rosecution. ,., , , , prosecution. ok, sorry, i digress. are ou prosecution. ok, sorry, i digress. are you aware _ prosecution. ok, sorry, i digress. are you aware that the _ prosecution. ok, sorry, i digress. are you aware that the central. prosecution. ok, sorry, i digress. i are you aware that the central legal department in royal mail group

provided legal advice on the prosecutions? —— legal advice. provided legal advice on the prosecutions? —— legaladvice. i prosecutions? —— legaladvice. i presume so yes, i took comfort in the fact— presume so yes, i took comfort in the fact they were there. so presume so yes, i took comfort in the fact they were there.- the fact they were there. so you knew royal _ the fact they were there. so you knew royal mail _ the fact they were there. so you knew royal mail had _ the fact they were there. so you knew royal mail had some - knew royal mail had some involvement?— knew royal mail had some involvement? yes. what did you think the were involvement? yes. what did you think they were doing? it's _ involvement? yes. what did you think they were doing? it's not _ involvement? yes. what did you think they were doing? it's not an _ involvement? yes. what did you think they were doing? it's not an unusual. they were doing? it's not an unusual governance — they were doing? it's not an unusual governance structure _ they were doing? it's not an unusual governance structure to _ they were doing? it's not an unusual governance structure to have - they were doing? it's not an unusual governance structure to have a - they were doing? it's not an unusual governance structure to have a large central — governance structure to have a large central support function that's providing a service to two or three different— providing a service to two or three different business units in a group. and for— different business units in a group. and for one — different business units in a group. and for one of those business units there _ and for one of those business units there would be a more senior person, lawyer— there would be a more senior person, lawyer or— there would be a more senior person, lawyer or accountant or whatever, that would — lawyer or accountant or whatever, that would establish a close relationship with the business unit. but their— relationship with the business unit. but their main boss would be the central— but their main boss would be the central function. but their main boss would be the centralfunction. now, if you but their main boss would be the central function. now, if you are in that central— central function. now, if you are in that central business unit you take some _ that central business unit you take some comfort from the fact that there _ some comfort from the fact that there is— some comfort from the fact that there is a — some comfort from the fact that there is a more high—power individual— there is a more high—power

individual in your group that is exercising _ individual in your group that is exercising technical oversight over what those people are doing. but what those people are doing. but what did what those people are doing. emit what did you think you are taking oversight of for you to gain any comfort? ~ ., , ., comfort? with the quality of the le . al comfort? with the quality of the legal decisions _ comfort? with the quality of the legal decisions being _ comfort? with the quality of the legal decisions being made. - comfort? with the quality of the j legal decisions being made. and comfort? with the quality of the - legal decisions being made. and what were the legal— legal decisions being made. and what were the legal decisions _ legal decisions being made. and what were the legal decisions being - legal decisions being made. and whatj were the legal decisions being made? well, there was a whole variety of things _ well, there was a whole variety of things we — well, there was a whole variety of things. we had, you know, post office _ things. we had, you know, post office current account fraud, there was loads— office current account fraud, there was loads of activity going on that was loads of activity going on that was nothing to do with horizon issues — was nothing to do with horizon issues and subpostmasters. so let's focus purely — issues and subpostmasters. so let's focus purely on _ issues and subpostmasters. so let's focus purely on the _ issues and subpostmasters. so let's focus purely on the decision - issues and subpostmasters. so let's focus purely on the decision to - focus purely on the decision to prosecute. did you realise that... sorry, lets make it broader than that. the investigation of subpostmasters for theft, fraud and false accounting and the subsequent prosecution, did you think about the royal mail group legal department had any involvement in that? i royal mail group legal department had any involvement in that? i would have thought —

had any involvement in that? i would have thought they _ had any involvement in that? i would have thought they had _ had any involvement in that? i would have thought they had oversight, - have thought they had oversight, yes. have thought they had oversight, es. ~ , , ., ~ have thought they had oversight, es. ~ , ~ . because yes. why did you think that? because the were yes. why did you think that? because they were responsible _ yes. why did you think that? because they were responsible for _ yes. why did you think that? because they were responsible for the - yes. why did you think that? because they were responsible for the legal i they were responsible for the legal function _ i'm going to go back to the hypothetical, where we started earlier. if you were aware, assume you were aware that post office limited were making the decisions to prosecute... limited were making the decisions to prosecute- - -— limited were making the decisions to prosecute... yes. word you have sou . ht prosecute... yes. word you have sought to — prosecute... yes. word you have sought to get — prosecute... yes. word you have sought to get legal... _ prosecute... yes. word you have sought to get legal... from a legal function within post office limited? well, the latter wasn't an option

because — well, the latter wasn't an option because that had been debated when i first was— because that had been debated when i first was offered the role. but i would — first was offered the role. but i would have... ifi first was offered the role. but i would have... if i had discovered that track— would have... if i had discovered that back then, i think i have already— that back then, i think i have already said, i would have then looked — already said, i would have then looked at — already said, i would have then looked at how we could put safety checks _ looked at how we could put safety checks in — looked at how we could put safety checks in and whatever. but it would have been— checks in and whatever. but it would have been something i would review with the _ have been something i would review with the group legal director. with hindsi . ht, with the group legal director. with hindsight. do _ with the group legal director. it? hindsight, do you think relying on the group legal department was effectively putting that advice to high up the chain? i effectively putting that advice to high up the chain?— effectively putting that advice to high up the chain? i think it was a mistake on _ high up the chain? i think it was a mistake on my — high up the chain? i think it was a mistake on my part. _ high up the chain? i think it was a mistake on my part. i _ high up the chain? i think it was a mistake on my part. i shouldn't. high up the chain? i think it was a i mistake on my part. i shouldn't have allowed _ mistake on my part. i shouldn't have allowed the — mistake on my part. i shouldn't have allowed the organisational structure to give _ allowed the organisational structure to give me — allowed the organisational structure to give me any sense of less of an accountability because i was accountable. but no, i don't think _

accountable. but no, i don't think... this was quite a big deal. ithink— think... this was quite a big deal. i think it — think... this was quite a big deal. i think it would be right and justifiable for me to be talking to the group — justifiable for me to be talking to the group legal director and seeking personal— the group legal director and seeking personal assurance from him that it was comfortable with what they were doing _ was comfortable with what they were doing l�*m _ was comfortable with what they were doinu. �* ., ., ., ., ., ., doing. i'm going to move to another toic, i doing. i'm going to move to another topic. i know _ doing. i'm going to move to another topic, i know slightly _ doing. i'm going to move to another topic, i know slightly early, - doing. i'm going to move to another topic, i know slightly early, but - doing. i'm going to move to another topic, i know slightly early, but i - topic, i know slightly early, but i wonder if it might be more sensible to have a break there and then have a longer break until we swap.- a longer break until we swap. yeah, however you — a longer break until we swap. yeah, however you wish _ a longer break until we swap. yeah, however you wish to _ a longer break until we swap. yeah, however you wish to pursue - a longer break until we swap. yeah, however you wish to pursue it. - a longer break until we swap. yeah, | however you wish to pursue it. what time shall— however you wish to pursue it. what time shall we — however you wish to pursue it. what time shall we start— however you wish to pursue it. what time shall we start again? _ however you wish to pursue it. what time shall we start again?— time shall we start again? 10.25. fine. -- time shall we start again? 10.25. fine- -- ten _ time shall we start again? 10.25. fine. -- ten .35. _ time shall we start again? 10.25. fine. -- ten .35. former- time shall we start again? 10.25. fine. -- ten .35. former post - time shall we start again? 10.25. i fine. -- ten .35. former post office director alan — fine. -- ten .35. former post office director alan cook, _ fine. -- ten .35. former post office director alan cook, managing - director alan cook, managing director alan cook, managing director between 2006 in 2010. we know the post office prosecuted hundreds of subpostmasters between 1999 and 2015. during his four year

ten year, 160 were prosecuted. and what he seemed to do there was talk a little bit about the in—house capability to prosecute subpostmasters and those external, the uk legal authorities. and he was saying, and it seems remarkable to hear, that despite the fact he was managing director during that time, he had no knowledge that the post office had an ability to prosecute, had the legal firepower, as it were, within it, to conduct legal prosecutions stop this, i would emphasise, despite the fact that 160 subpostmasters were prosecuted during that time. he said about one third of them went to the normal legal route. and two thirds were dealt with within the post office. probably requires a bit of examination as to what the difference is and why that's the case. let's hear a little bit more about a lady who was prosecuted whilst pregnant. she served a 15

month sentence, she was pregnant at the beginning of that sentence. that was in 2010. her conviction was quashed in 2022. yesterday she received an apology from the former post office managing director david smith. and she refused that apology and this is what she had to say. i think they definitely knew that i'm innocent because we have seen quite a few e—mails and all that. they all knew there was a scandal going on and everything. just a couple of days my trial began they had a meeting. i don't take it, no, it is a complete lie.— meeting. i don't take it, no, it is a complete lie. ok, he also said in his evidence _ a complete lie. ok, he also said in his evidence yesterday, _ a complete lie. ok, he also said in his evidence yesterday, and - a complete lie. ok, he also said in his evidence yesterday, and this i a complete lie. ok, he also said in l his evidence yesterday, and this was a message _ his evidence yesterday, and this was a message directly to you and your family. _ a message directly to you and your family. he — a message directly to you and your family, he apologised for how his words _ family, he apologised for how his words had — family, he apologised for how his words had been perceived. that was his language, how his words had,

brilliant _ his language, how his words had, brilliant news, well done, had been perceived _ brilliant news, well done, had been perceived by you. so how do you perceive — perceived by you. so how do you perceive those words? the}t perceived by you. so how do you perceive those words? they knew, there is an — perceive those words? they knew, there is an issue, _ perceive those words? they knew, there is an issue, they _ perceive those words? they knew, there is an issue, they knew- perceive those words? they knew, there is an issue, they knew they i there is an issue, they knew they were sending a woman to prison. so saying brilliant news to the team, and after that apologising, and then not cooperating in the inquiry, it doesn't go ahead, it doesn't go hand—in—hand. for doesn't go ahead, it doesn't go hand-in-hand._ doesn't go ahead, it doesn't go hand-in-hand. ., , ., hand-in-hand. for those people not familiar with — hand-in-hand. for those people not familiar with your _ hand-in-hand. for those people not familiar with your circumstances - hand-in-hand. for those people not familiar with your circumstances at i familiar with your circumstances at the time. — familiar with your circumstances at the time, when you were sentenced to prison. _ the time, when you were sentenced to prison. you _ the time, when you were sentenced to prison, you were eight weeks pregnant— prison, you were eight weeks pregnant and you had, i think your son then _ pregnant and you had, i think your son then was ten years old, is that right? _ son then was ten years old, is that right? tell— son then was ten years old, is that right? tell us a little bit about that time. right? tell us a little bit about that time-— right? tell us a little bit about that time. . ., , , . right? tell us a little bit about that time. . . , , . ., that time. yeah, i was sentenced on m eldest that time. yeah, i was sentenced on my eldest son's _ that time. yeah, i was sentenced on my eldest son's tenth _ that time. yeah, i was sentenced on my eldest son's tenth birthday, - that time. yeah, i was sentenced on my eldest son's tenth birthday, the | my eldest son's tenth birthday, the exact date. and i was eight weeks pregnant. i pleaded not guilty to the theft charges so the jury came back with a guilty verdict. i was in

prison but i was released early for good behaviour but i still gave birth with a tag on.— good behaviour but i still gave birth with a tag on. when you think back to that — birth with a tag on. when you think back to that time _ birth with a tag on. when you think back to that time now, _ birth with a tag on. when you think back to that time now, what - birth with a tag on. when you think back to that time now, what do - birth with a tag on. when you thinkj back to that time now, what do you think? _ back to that time now, what do you think? |_ back to that time now, what do you think? ., back to that time now, what do you think? . ., think? i am ok to fight with the ost think? i am ok to fight with the post office- _ think? i am ok to fight with the post office. we _ think? i am ok to fight with the post office. we know _ think? i am ok to fight with the post office. we know we - think? i am ok to fight with the post office. we know we are - think? | am ok to fight with the - post office. we know we are fighting for justice. post office. we know we are fighting forjustice. but the prison bit, i still can't get over it, it still gives me nightmares. i was sent to prison for a crime i never committed. and here are all these people, they committed a crime and are roaming around freely, and that makes me more and more angry. {aide makes me more and more angry. give us a sense. — makes me more and more angry. give us a sense, because _ makes me more and more angry. give us a sense, because i have heard one or two— us a sense, because i have heard one or two other— us a sense, because i have heard one or two other former postmasters who were involved in this saying that obviously— were involved in this saying that obviously it's a good thing the inquiry— obviously it's a good thing the inquiry is _ obviously it's a good thing the inquiry is taking place and people are being — inquiry is taking place and people are being asked questions, but at the same — are being asked questions, but at the same time it is very hard for you to _ the same time it is very hard for you to hear— the same time it is very hard for you to hear again the evidence, to hear— you to hear again the evidence, to hear people saying the words. how has it— hear people saying the words. how has it been— hear people saying the words. how has it been for you as you have watched — has it been for you as you have watched and listened? it

has it been for you as you have watched and listened?- has it been for you as you have watched and listened? it has been really hard. _ watched and listened? it has been really hard, bringing _ watched and listened? it has been really hard, bringing back - watched and listened? it has been really hard, bringing back all - watched and listened? it has been really hard, bringing back all the l really hard, bringing back all the memories, but it's a process we have to go through. we know it's difficult but we are fighting for justice and we have to go for it. seema misra, who was convicted in 2010. her conviction was quashed in 2021. that was during the tenure of david smith as post office mentoring director. he has apologised and she has rejected that apology. he was managing directorforfor several months in that time when she was convicted. we can go to our correspondent azadeh moshiri at the inquiry. we have been hearing this morning from alan cook. he was managing director between 2006 and 2010, this is a long running saga, it went on for in excess of 15 years, so there are many executives involved in one way or another. what was the most striking thing he said? whatjumped out to me was when he

suggested that he was not aware that