Serbian president faces legal complaint in Sarajevo ‘sniper-tourism’ case

A Croatian investigative reporter has filed a complaint with Milan prosecutors against the Serbian president, Aleksandar Vučić, for his alleged involvement in the “Sarajevo safari” affair, in which snipers from Italy and other countries allegedly travelled to the Bosnian capital to kill civilians during the four-year siege of the city in the 1990s. Last week, Milan prosecutors launched an investigation aimed at identifying the Italians allegedly involved on charges of voluntary murder aggravated by cruelty and abject motives. According to investigators, groups of “sniper tourists” are alleged to have participated in the mass killings after paying large sums of money to soldiers belonging to the army of Radovan Karadžić – the former Bosnian Serb leader who in 2016 was found guilty of genocide and other crimes against humanity – to be transported to the hills surrounding Sarajevo so that they could shoot at the population for pleasure. More than 10,000 people were killed in Sarajevo by shelling and sniper fire between 1992 and 1996 in what was the longest siege in modern history, after Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence from Yugoslavia. The snipers were perhaps the most feared element of life under siege in Sarajevo because they would indiscriminately pick off people on the streets, including children. The investigation originated from a legal complaint submitted by Ezio Gavazzeni, a Milan-based writer who gathered evidence on the allegations, as well as a report sent to the prosecutors by the former mayor of Sarajevo Benjamina Karić. Gavazzeni said he had first read reports about the alleged sniper tourists in the Italian press in the 1990s, but it was not until he watched Sarajevo Safari, a 2022 documentary by the Slovenian director Miran Zupanič, that he began to investigate further. On Wednesday, the investigative journalist Domagoj Margetić filed his complaint against Vučić with prosecutors who are investigating the case. As reported in Sarajevo, in recent days Margetić posted evidence on social media that Vučić, then a young volunteer, was present at one of the military posts in Sarajevo from which, according to witnesses, foreign citizens and Serbian ultranationalist units were shooting and killing civilians in what has been described as a macabre “tourist safari”. Nicola Brigida, a lawyer who helped Gavazzeni prepare his case, said: “The evidence accumulated after a long investigation [by Gavazzeni] is well substantiated and could lead to serious investigation to identify the culprits. There is also the report from the former Sarajevo mayor.” Gavazzeni claimed “many, many, many Italians” were alleged to have been involved, without providing a figure. “There were Germans, French, English … people from all western countries who paid large sums of money to be taken there to shoot civilians.” He added: “There were no political or religious motivations. They were rich people who went there for fun and personal satisfaction. We are talking about people who love guns who perhaps go to shooting ranges or on safari in Africa.” Gavazzeni claimed the Italian suspects would meet in the northern city of Trieste and travel to Belgrade, from where the Bosnian Serb soldiers would accompany them to the hills of Sarajevo. “There was a traffic of war tourists who went to there to shoot people,” he said. “I call it an indifference towards evil.” Vučić has yet to comment on the allegations. Yet rumours about his time in Sarajevo have circulated for years. In a 2021 interview with a Bosnian TV channel, the Serbian president explicitly denied ever firing on the besieged city, describing the allegations as a political manipulation rooted in the nationalist rhetoric of his youth and the region’s fragile balance of power. Agencies contributed to this report.

Ukraine banned from Nato, Russia readmitted to the G8 and territory ceded: what’s in Trump’s draft plan

Donald Trump’s latest plan for ending the war in Ukraine would see territory ceded to Russia, Russia readmitted to the G8 and Ukraine banned from joining Nato, according to drafts of the proposal seen by Axios, AFP and the Associated Press. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he expected to discuss the plan with Trump “in coming days,” adding any deal must bring a “dignified peace” with “respect for our independence, our sovereignty.” The cautious response from Ukraine’s presidential administration stood in contrast to the outrage at the plan from some Ukrainian officials who called it “absurd” “capitulation” and the effective end of its existence as an independent country The plan appears to repeat Moscow’s maximalist demands and violate numerous Ukrainian red lines and would require an about-turn from Zelenskyy, who has said giving up territory would be unacceptable. It would also probably be deemed unacceptable by Ukraine’s European allies, who have long insisted that they should be given a role in the peace talks given the broader implications of the settlement for the continent’s security, particularly on Nato’s eastern flank. The plan was reportedly drafted by Russian and US officials, including the influential head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, Kirill Dmitriev, who has been involved in previous talks on Ukraine and is known to be in touch with the US special envoy Steve Witkoff. On Thursday White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, “the president supports this plan. It’s a good plan for both Russia and Ukraine.” Witkoff and US secretary of state Marco Rubio had been “quietly” working on the plan with both Russia and Ukraine for around a month, Leavitt said. She rejected concerns that the plan echoes many of Moscow’s maximalist demands. So what is in the 28-point plan? Territory Ukraine would give up the Donbas region to Russia, according to the draft seen by a number of outlets, which corresponds to Moscow’s previous demands. “Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognised as de facto Russian, including by the United States,” the plan reads. Kyiv still partly holds Luhansk and Donetsk, which together make up the Donbas industrial belt on the frontline of the war. Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014. Areas from which Ukraine has withdrawn in Donetsk would be deemed a demilitarised zone which Russian forces will not enter, according to the plan. The southern regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia – which Russia falsely claims to have annexed – will be “frozen along the line of contact,” it said. The plan for Donbas, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia corresponds to Moscow’s previous demands. Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, occupied by Russian forces since March 2022, would be supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the electricity it produces be shared between Russia and Ukraine, the plan reportedly says. Security The US-backed plan calls for Ukraine to reduce its army to 600,000 personnel, according to the draft seen by multiple outlets, a reduction of hundreds of thousands compared to its current size. Nato would agree not to station troops in Ukraine – dashing Kyiv’s hopes for a European peacekeeping force – and the country would be barred from joining Nato. That fits with previous Russian demands that have been made public and goes against Ukraine’s previous demands. Ukraine would receive “reliable security guarantees,” the plan says without specifying. But European jets would be stationed in neighbouring Poland. Diplomacy Under the proposed deal, Russia would be “reintegrated into the global economy” after nearly four years of tough sanctions and be allowed back into the G8. “It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries and NATO will not expand further,” the document says, according to multiple media outlets. But all sanctions would snap back if Russia invades Ukraine again – “in addition to a decisive coordinated military response.” In addition, $100bn in frozen Russian assets would be dedicated to rebuilding Ukraine, but others would be invested in a separate US-Russian investment fund “aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.” The plan states that Ukraine would hold elections within 100 days, and both Ukraine and Russia would implement “educational programs in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice.” With Agence France-Presse and the Associated Press

Ukraine war briefing: Buildings engulfed in flames as Russian air attack on Zaporizhzhia kills five

A Russian attack on the south-eastern Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia late on Thursday killed five people and injured three, the regional governor said. Ivan Fedorov posted pictures online showing buildings engulfed by flames and streets strewn with rubble. Fedorov had earlier issued a warning of an impending attack by Russian guided bombs. Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said he will negotiate with Donald Trump on a US-backed peace plan that called on Ukraine to make painful concessions in order to end the Russian invasion, report Luke Harding and Andrew Roth. The Ukrainian president’s office on Thursday confirmed he had received the draft peace plan, which was prepared by US and Russian officials, and that he would speak to Trump in the coming days about “existing diplomatic opportunities and the main points that are necessary for peace”. “Ukraine needs peace and Ukraine will do everything so that no one in the world can say we are upending diplomacy. This is important,” Zelenskyy said in his nightly video address. His cautious response followed angry denouncements of the plan by some Ukrainian officials who called it “absurd” and unacceptable. Key points of the draft US-Russian proposal, according to a copy seen by news agencies, include that: – Ukraine give up the Luhansk and Donetsk provinces – making up the Donbas region – as well as Crimea, which will all be “recognised as de facto Russian, including by the United States”. – Ukraine will not join Nato, now or in future. The military alliance will agree not to station troops in Ukraine. – Ukraine’s armed forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel. – Ukraine will receive “reliable security guarantees” and be eligible for EU membership. – Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8 and be “reintegrated into the global economy”, with a view to the lifting of sanctions. It will be expected not to invade any neighbouring countries. Europeans must be involved in any attempt to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia, the continent’s top diplomats said after reports emerged of the US-Russia plan favourable to Kremlin interests. Jennifer Rankin reports that the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, welcomed any “meaningful efforts” to end the war but said Ukrainian and European input was needed for any plan to work. “[Vladimir] Putin could end this war immediately if he just stopped bombing civilians and killing the people,” she said. “But we haven’t seen any concessions on the Russian side. We welcome all the meaningful efforts to end this war, but like we have said before, it has to be just and lasting. That also means that the Ukrainians, but also the Europeans, agree to this.” The chief of Russia’s general staff told Vladimir Putin on Thursday that Russian forces had taken control of the north-eastern Ukrainian city of Kupiansk, but Ukraine’s military denied the city had changed hands. Ukraine also dismissed Russian statements that its forces had taken over large parts of Pokrovsk – a key logistics hub it has been pressing to capture for months – and Vovchansk, near the Russian border. Putin had visited the command post of the Russian forces’ “west” grouping, where he met with chief of staff Valery Gerasimov and top military brass, the Kremlin said earlier. Gerasimov told Putin in a video posted on the Kremlin site that the heaviest fighting along the 1,200km frontline was near Pokrovsk, with Ukrainian forces offering “stiff resistance”. A billion-dollar money laundering network that operated across Britain bought a controlling stake in a Kyrgyzstani bank to facilitate sanctions evasion and support Russia’s war in Ukraine, Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA) said. In an update to an international investigation into Russian money laundering networks, dubbed “Operation Destabilise”, the NCA said on Friday it was highlighting the scale of networks it was disrupting that convert cash from street crime into cryptocurrency and tie the local drugs trade to organised and state-sponsored crime. The NCA and its enforcement partners in countries such as the US, France, Spain and Ireland had arrested 128 in the global crackdown, it said.

Zelenskyy to negotiate with Trump over US-Russia peace deal requiring painful concessions

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said he will negotiate with Donald Trump on a US-backed peace plan that called on Ukraine to make painful concessions in order to end the Kremlin’s invasion of his country. The president’s office on Thursday confirmed he had received the draft peace plan, which was prepared by US and Russian officials, and that he would speak to Trump in the coming days about “existing diplomatic opportunities and the main points that are necessary for peace”. In his nightly video address, Zelenskyy said Ukraine would do nothing to disrupt any diplomatic efforts. “Ukraine needs peace and Ukraine will do everything so that no one in the world can say we are upending diplomacy. This is important,” Zelenskyy said, adding that Ukraine would issue no “rash” statements. “The number one task for everyone is a constructive diplomatic process with America and all our partners. It is vital to have stable support for our army and all our planned defence operations and deep strikes.” The cautious response from Ukraine’s presidential administration followed angry denouncements of the plan by some Ukrainian officials who called it “absurd” and unacceptable. According to reports, the sweeping 28-point proposal closely resembles demands made by Moscow soon after its full-scale invasion in early 2022. It was reportedly drawn up by Russian and US officials, with support from Trump. Kyiv was not consulted. One European diplomat said they learned of the plan only when they turned on the news. It envisages Kyiv giving up Crimea and the Donbas region, while the frontlines of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia would be frozen along the current line of contact. Ukraine would agree to limit its army to 600,000 personnel, a reductions of hundreds of thousands. European fighter jets would be based in Poland to protect Ukraine, but no Nato troops would be stationed in Ukraine and Kyiv would agree never to join the military alliance, according to the plan seen by Axios and AFP. No foreign troops would be allowed on Ukrainian soil, a condition that rules out a post-deal peacekeeping force led by the UK and France. But the US would provide unspecified security guarantees, according to Axios. In addition, $100bn in frozen Russian assets would be dedicated to rebuilding Ukraine. There would also be a path to reintegrating Russia in the global economy, including the future lifting of sanctions, according to the Associate Press. Ukrainian officials said the document amounted to the effective end of its existence as an independent country. It comes nearly four years after Russian troops tried and failed to seize Kyiv, and as efforts by the Trump administration to end the conflict remain stalled. Zelenskyy held talks on Thursday with a high-ranking US military delegation, led by the army secretary Dan Driscoll. Driscoll – a former classmate of the US vice-president, JD Vance – arrived in Kyiv bearing important messages from the White House, US sources indicated. He is likely to travel to Moscow at the end of next week to discuss the plan with the Kremlin, they said. American diplomats said Donald Trump was trying to achieve peace “with an incredible sense of momentum”. His administration was pursuing an “aggressive timeline” with the Ukrainians to reach an agreement, they added, and wanted to achieve this in the “shortest possible” period. The White House said the plan was “good” for both sides, rejecting concerns that it echoes many of Moscow’s demands. After an hour-long, one-to-one meeting between Driscoll and Zelenskyy, the chargé d’affaires at the US embassy in Kyiv, Julie Davis, said: “We have witnessed today a remarkable pace of diplomatic activity. We are going to continue these efforts today and tomorrow and keep at this.” Officials in Kyiv were unimpressed. They said the proposal – reportedly drafted by Kirill Dmitriev, a close ally of Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff – was a “provocation”, the aim of which was to stir up division and “disorientate” Ukraine’s allies, they added. “There are currently no signs that the Kremlin is ready for serious negotiations. Putin is trying to stall for time and avoid US sanctions,” said Oleksandr Merezhko, the chair of Ukraine’s foreign policy parliamentary committee. “It means capitulation, for Ukraine, for Europe and for America,” said Roman Kostenko, a Ukrainian commander and politician. Last week, Trump named Driscoll as his new “special representative”. His mission to Kyiv included explaining the White House’s latest peace plan, as well as military meetings and discussions concerning battlefield innovation, a US official said. Two four-star generals travelled with him. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special representative to Ukraine, has reportedly planned his departure, saying he would leave in January after a year in the post. Kellogg is regarded as being broadly sympathetic to Ukraine and has been consequently left out of direct US-Russian talks. The White House’s renewed push to force Ukraine to make significant concessions in pursuit of “peace” comes at a difficult time for Zelenskyy, who is embroiled in the biggest political scandal since he became president in 2019. His former business partner Timur Mindich and at least two government ministers are accused of involvement in a large-scale bribery scheme. Several deputies from Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party have called on the president to dismiss Andriy Yermak, his powerful chief of staff. One western diplomat said the Russians were seeking to take advantage of Ukraine’s domestic crisis. “It seems Dmitriev has spun this plan at a time when Zelenskyy is weak. The Russians are good at exploiting things,” they said. “It feels like every other Russian plan. I don’t think it’s going to fly with Ukraine.” The diplomat said the Kremlin’s demands concerning the Russian language were a “hook” it could later exploit. The proposal did not offer the kind of security assurances Ukraine would need from the US and its European allies for any deal to stick, they added. European leaders meeting in Brussels said they had not been warned in advance about the latest White House initiative. The Trump administration no longer provided direct military aid to Kyiv, a fact that reduced its ability to impose a Moscow-friendly peace settlement on Ukraine, one source noted. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said Europe welcomed any efforts to achieve a long-lasting and just settlement of the war, but stressed: “For any plan to work, it needs Ukrainians and Europeans on board.” Kallas said the Dmitriev-Witkoff proposal did not envisage Russia making any concessions. “We have to understand that in this war, there is one aggressor and one victim. If Russia really wanted peace, it could have agreed to an unconditional ceasefire already some time ago.” The British government said it backed Trump’s desire to “bring this barbaric war to an end”. But it emphasised that “only the Ukrainian people can determine their future” and said Russia could end the fighting tomorrow by pulling out troops and ending its “illegal invasion”. US efforts to broker peace have hit roadblocks since Trump met Putin in Alaska in August. The US president subsequently imposed sanctions on Russia’s oil industry, in an apparent attempt to push Putin to the negotiating table. Trump said last month that he was putting on hold his plan for a meeting with the Russian president in Budapest because he didn’t want it to be a “waste of time”. In recent months Russia has increased its systematic attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, plunging much of the country into darkness. On Wednesday it bombed several western cities, including Ternopil, where 26 people, including three children, were killed in their homes.

Brazilian president will take fossil fuel phase-out plan to G20 summit

The Brazilian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has told Cop30 delegates that he will take his fossil fuel transition roadmap to the G20 in Johannesburg this week to campaign for it, despite reports that petrostates have said they will not accept the plan. Before leaving Cop30 in Belém, the figurehead of the global south told civil society representatives he was ready to fight for the proposal to phase out oil, coal and gas in whatever forum was necessary. “Lula told me that he was all in on the roadmap and that he would campaign for it everywhere, in the G7 and G20,” said Marcio Astrini, director of the Climate Observatory campaign group. “It’s his proposal. He’s worried about those who are threatened by extreme climate events. That’s what moves him. He understands the climate crisis is a machine that worsens poverty and inequality.” Climate conferences are always games of three-dimensional chess as the world’s governments juggle priorities and haggle over commitments. But the prospect of Lula opening a new front for his campaign in Johannesburg adds an intriguing transcontinental twist. It would also lift the stakes. The G20 brings together more powerful world leaders than Cop, where negotiations are mainly conducted by ministers. There is certainly a need for more impetus. Eighty-two governments signed up to the roadmap on Tuesday, but they only account for 7% of global fossil fuel production. The roadmap has since been knocked backwards, with sources close to the negotiations saying that Russia, China, India and South Africa jointly had told the Brazilian Cop presidency they would not accept the plan. The “like-minded developing countries” grouping, which includes coal and oil producers, has also expressed reservations. As a result, the Guardian understands the proposal has been stripped out of the latest draft of the main negotiating text. Others claim the roadmap is already roadkill. Nobody is entirely sure because the Brazilian presidency has gone into a secretive mode. Despite promising transparent “mutirão” collective negotiating, observers say the past day’s talks have mainly been behind closed doors with the hosts only showing portions of the text to each group of nations. There may also still be room for manoeuvre. In private discussions outside the presidency’s meetings, sources say Saudi Arabian and Chinese diplomats have shown openness to the idea of a roadmap as long as each country can choose their own pathway. India has reportedly been more hesitant. Less developed countries might also be persuaded to move if the European Union and other industrialised countries make a clearer commitment on finance. The EU has indicated that the roadmap is now a red line they are willing to defend, but they also have to be willing to pay. Throwing an extra level of complexity into the mix are the divisions within Brazil, where Lula’s scope for action is limited by a powerful petrochemical and agribusiness lobby. Different ministries within his government also have different levels of ambition for Cop30. The driving force until now has been Marina Silva, the environment minister, who persuaded Lula of the need for a roadmap and has pushed the idea in Belém. But the foreign ministry, represented by the Cop president, André Corrêa do Lago, is more cautious. Several sources told the Guardian they do not support the roadmap because of the risk of failure, and that they would rather focus on smaller, more easily achievable wins that could keep the multilateral process alive. The next version of the negotiating text was expected late on Thursday, but plans were thrown into disarray early in the afternoon when a fire broke out in the pavilion area of the conference centre. Delegations holding meetings in their rooms nearby were evacuated but the UN said no one was hurt. Firefighters controlled the blaze, but the entire venue had to be cleared from shortly after 2pm. The Guardian was told it was likely to be several hours at least before any delegates were allowed to return. The incident disrupted a carefully choreographed series of meetings between the presidency and the main negotiating groups. The Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis) had been scheduled to meet the presidency shortly before 4pm, but that was cancelled. The EU was due to hold a ministerial coordination meeting at 6pm prior to meeting the presidency at 9pm, but that timetable was thrown into doubt. The severity of the disruption at this stage of the talks is likely to make it impossible to stick to the Brazilian timetable, and may push the talks well into overtime.

Ukraine’s Zelenskyy receives ‘draft plan’ from US and expects to talk with Trump in coming days – as it happened

… and on that note, it’s a wrap! The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, expects to discuss the diplomatic opportunities for ending the war in Ukraine with US president Donald Trump in the coming days, according to his office (17:15). His office confirmed that Ukraine has received a draft US peace plan, and will work on the details of the proposals included there further to align them with their “fundamental principles” (17:28). The 28-point plan, as reported in the media, appeared to include a number of proposals violating Ukraine and the EU’s red lines (12:56), which would need to be addressed before it can be agreed. The move comes after EU foreign ministers insisted no peace deal can be agreed by the US and Russia without the participation of Ukraine and the EU (14:14, 16:09, 16:24, 16:40, 16:54) Elsewhere, French public prosecutors are investigating allegations by government ministers and human rights groups that Grok, Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, made statements denying the Holocaust (17:40). Spain has marked the 50th anniversary of Francisco Franco’s death with an absence of official events but with a call from the prime minister to heed the lessons of the dictatorship and defend the democratic freedom “wrenched from us for so many years” (14:59). Around 5o people were hurt after two trains have collided in southern Czech Republic this morning, with two people seriously injured, according to local emergency services (10:21). And that’s all from me, Jakub Krupa, for today. If you have any tips, comments or suggestions, email me at jakub.krupa@theguardian.com. I am also on Bluesky at @jakubkrupa.bsky.social and on X at @jakubkrupa.

‘Chaotic and indecisive’: key findings of report on UK’s Covid response under Tories

“Too little too late” is the key finding of Heather Hallett’s second report from the Covid public inquiry, which focused on politicians and the decisions they made at important points during the pandemic. At 760 pages long, there is no shortage of detail on exactly what went wrong and when in the UK during those tumultuous months in 2020 and 2021, and how the actions of those in the heart of power had severe consequences for millions of people. Here are the key points from the inquiry’s findings: There was chaos in No 10 Some of the report’s strongest criticism was directed at the then prime minister, Boris Johnson, and the “toxic and chaotic culture” of his government during its response to the pandemic. Giving evidence, the former head of the civil service Simon Case said “good people were just being smashed to pieces”, while others claimed there was a sexist culture where “junior women being talked over or ignored”. The inquiry found that Johnson’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings “materially contributed to the toxic and sexist workplace culture” and “poisoned the atmosphere in 10 Downing Street”, rebuking him for the “offensive, sexualised and misogynistic language” he used in messages. Johnson came under fire for not seeking to “restrain or control” Cummings, and for “intentionally seeking to foster conflict and a chaotic working environment”. The report concluded: “As a result of the poor culture at the centre of the UK government, the quality of advice and decision-making suffered.” Decision-making was too slow The report is unequivocal in its conclusions around decision-making and how if leaders had acted quicker, lives could have been saved. It describes February 2020 as a “lost month” and said that by 12 March 2020 the situation was “little short of calamitous”. If a mandatory lockdown had been imposed a week earlier in March 2020, there would have been about 23,000 fewer deaths, it concluded. During the second wave in September and October 2020, it said Johnson “repeatedly changed his mind on whether to introduce tougher restrictions and failed to make timely decisions”, and that a second lockdown in England could have been “reduced in length and severity” if he had acted quicker. The report said that in future emergencies, “interventions must be imposed earlier and ‘harder’ than might be considered ideal”, and recommended central taskforces be created in each nation to help with decision-making. The Welsh government was also found to have implemented a two-week “firebreak” lockdown too late and lifted measures too quickly, which contributed to a high mortality rate in the country from August to December 2020. In Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, the then first minister, was criticised for her overly centralised decision-making process, in which she held “gold command” meetings with a small group of advisers that “reduced transparency” during the pandemic. On Northern Ireland, the report said a politically divided Stormont executive led to “chaotic decision-making” during the pandemic and the country’s response was “deeply divided along political lines and beset by leaks, leading to an incoherent approach”. Vulnerable people weren’t protected The report said several key groups who were more at risk from Covid, such as disabled people and people from some ethnic minorities, were not sufficiently protected owing to a lack of data and policy failures. The government failed to “act sufficiently speedily to mitigate some risks to disabled people”, the report said, such as by not adding people with Down’s syndrome to the shielded patient list until September 2020. It also criticised the redeployment of members of the race disparity unit and the government equalities office to help with the pandemic response, even though it was known from April 2020 that people from ethnic minority groups were at a heightened risk of becoming infected. Messages were confusing Confusing messaging to the public was a key theme of the report, with Johnson criticised for his “expressions of over-optimism”. The inquiry found that he had “failed to convey a proper sense of caution, thereby undermining his government’s public health messaging” on some occasions, such as when he talked about how he had shaken people’s hands in hospital the day before launching a handwashing campaign. The “eat out to help out” campaign, which encouraged people back to bars and restaurants with discounts, “might have contributed to a belief that the pandemic was effectively over, even though the government was aware of the significant risk that there would be further waves of the virus”. It also said the mantra of “following the science” that was used by politicians throughout the pandemic “downplayed their responsibility for their own decision-making” and suggested scientific advice was being heeded at the cost of all other considerations when that wasn’t true. Finally the report said that rule-breaking by senior government officials, such as Cummings’ trip to Barnard Castle, “undermined public confidence in decision-making and significantly increased the risk of the public failing to adhere to measures designed to protect the population”. Politicians didn’t understand the science The inquiry heard that “many ministers lacked confidence in their ability to understand technical material”, with Johnson in particular singled out for struggling with scientific concepts. In notes from the time, the government’s chief scientific adviser, Patrick Vallance, said Johnson was “bamboozled” and that watching him “get his head around the stats was awful”. Ministers often confused “scenario modelling” – which examined the consequences of worst-case scenarios – with forecasts of what would probably happen. This resulted in reputational damage and modellers being considered “over-pessimistic doom-mongers”. The report recommended a training course on “core scientific concepts” for politicians that could be provided at the outset of an emergency. There was no support for experts The inquiry said it was “striking that the burden of providing advice to ministers fell on the shoulders of a few individuals, especially in the devolved nations”. Scientific experts described their workloads as “excessive” and “relentless”, and the inquiry emphasised how most of them were not paid for their advice, which they had to fit in around their jobs. They were also subjected to “threats and intimidation” via social media, emails, phone calls and letters. Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, was assaulted in a park in June 2021. His deputy, Jonathan Van-Tam, said he had never expected his family to be threatened with having their throats cut. The inquiry said there was a “real risk that intrusive media coverage, coupled with online abuse, other forms of malicious communication and physical harassment, will dissuade talented people from contributing to the provision of scientific advice”. UK should prepare for next pandemic The report’s recommendations suggested new structures need to be urgently put in place to improve decision-making in any future national emergency. It said the response to a future whole-system civil emergency should be coordinated by central taskforces in the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with responsibility for commissioning advice, and there should be more scrutiny of emergency powers such as those used to impose lockdowns. Other suggestions included better inclusion of experts from the devolved nations in discussions, creating a register of experts who can be drawn upon for scientific advisory groups and creating an online portal for restrictions and guidance in each area.

MI5 ‘very relaxed’ about proposed Chinese super-embassy in London, sources say

MI5 officers told the House of Commons speaker at a private meeting that they can tackle the risks of a proposed Chinese super-embassy in London, opening the door to its approval. The Guardian understands that in a meeting held with Lindsay Hoyle in the summer, senior figures from the Security Service indicated they were “very relaxed” about the prospect of a 20,000 sq metre embassy being constructed at Royal Mint Court near Tower Bridge. It is considered that the espionage risks stemming from the large outpost can be managed. China has long had a diplomatic presence in the UK, with its existing embassy on Portland Place dating back over a century. Keir Starmer is planning to travel to China for his first bilateral visit in January or February next year, according to several people briefed on the plans, but insiders believe that any trip is contingent on the embassy being greenlit next month. In October, when asked about the espionage risk posed by the new embassy, Ken McCallum, the spy agency’s director general, indicated the Security Service believed the development was something it could deal with. “MI5 has more than a century of experience of dealing with the national security risks, which do flow from the presence of foreign embassies on British soil,” he said. “This is something which you would expect MI5 to have a view on. You would expect us and GCHQ and others to have deep expertise around.” The Security Service will not disclose details of the advice it has given to ministers as the planning decision nears, but it is understood that its opinions will have been passed up to the Home Office, its sponsor department. A government source said the message that the security services were relaxed about the proposed development had been communicated to ministers. A spokesperson for the Commons speaker declined to comment. Opponents of the project have cited security concerns, including regarding the presence of cables beneath the site connecting to the City of London, as a reason it should be rejected. There are also concerns about the traffic and safety implications for local residents, and critics have questioned the optics of allowing China to build its biggest diplomatic outpost in London. However, a former senior British intelligence officer said that, while it was well-known that “embassies are nests for spies”, their location “also presented an opportunity” for potential surveillance. Ministers are weighing up whether to approve the super-embassy by 10 December, having already pushed back the decision twice. The delays have drawn the ire of the Chinese government, which demanded last month that the UK “immediately fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments otherwise the British side shall bear all consequences”. Beijing is blocking extensive renovation works at the British embassy in Beijing while the fate of its own embassy building in London is being decided. The Guardian disclosed that Boris Johnson, while he was foreign secretary, wrote to his Chinese counterpart in 2018 saying he was “committed to ensuring that our projects develop alongside each other”. Richard Moore, who stepped down as chief of MI6 in September, indicated in a series of interviews this month that a compromise was likely to be reached. “I’m sure there has to be a way through where they get an appropriate embassy and we are allowed to retain and develop our own, excellent embassy in Beijing,” he told Bloomberg. “We need [an embassy] in Beijing and it’s important that we have that, so it’s right and proper that the Chinese should get their embassy. Whether it’s this one or not isn’t really for me to judge.” Nigel Inkster, a senior adviser at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and former assistant chief of MI6, said “the size of the embassy is immaterial” and that “it is far easier to monitor staff centred in one location rather than dispersed all around the city”. Inkster added that many countries, including China, now avoid spying out of diplomatic outposts because the increasing sophistication of surveillance technologies had made such operations more difficult. China also recruits people online. Earlier this week, MI5 accused two LinkedIn headhunters based in China of acting as fronts for the country’s powerful ministry of state security, seeking to recruit politicians and their associations. An espionage alert was circulated to MPs and peers warning about the activities of two LinkedIn accounts under the names of Amanda Qiu and Shirly Shen.