11/07/2014 The Papers

Rory Michael Roy. I love highlights and we will see how Flintoff got on

in his comeback. Hello and welcome to our look

ahead to what the the papers With me are Jeremy Cliffe UK

Political Correspondent of The Economist and Louise Court,

Editor in Chief of Cosmopolitan. Tomorrow's front pages,

starting with: The Financial Times features

the problems at Burberry, after shareholders rejected a

multi`million pound pay rise for the The Daily Telegraph also leads with

Lord Carey's revised views The 'i' suggests that the

Prime Minister will be looking to promote more women to the cabinet

in the upcoming reshuffle. The Independent has a picture

of a 9`year`old girl injured The Guardian leads with

David Cameron's choices It also on the front page news

that Amazon has asked permission Let's look at how the Daily Mail is

covering this Lord Carey story. Lord Carey: I have changed my mind on the

right to die. This puts him at odds with the line that the church of

England is sticking to, which is that it opposes the right to die. It

also puts him at odds with his own previous comments. He said he wasn't

in line with the church's teachings in helping people to die, but he has

changed his mind. This announcement comes shortly before his debate in

the House of Lords. A very dramatic intervention. I wonder whether it

might possibly change the course of the debate when it takes place. He

said that by opposing reform, that'll have resonance for a lot of

people who have nursed people through terminal illnesses. He is

talking about advances in medical technology, he says it is the church

's job to have a message of hope. He worries that by keeping people alive

when they are terminally ill that the church is supporting anguish and

pain. He is clear that it is about people who are terminally ill, not

people with a long`term condition. He was influenced by meeting Tony's

Nicholinson. It's always interesting to watch how the church, or any

religion, deal with issues of conscience and morality when their

teachings are very clear about what they should feel. I suppose it

depends on your definition of kill. Is it helping someone to die when

they would otherwise, it is a conjugated theological debate, and I

think one on which you will never get a unified view. There has been

said that if this bill goes through there will need to be two doctors to

verify that the person is dying anyway. As we know, with regard to

suicide, at one time it was illegal to kill yourself. If you did kill

yourself often you weren't allowed to be buried in consecrated ground.

This is part of a long`term shift. We've seen it in other areas in the

meaning of marriage. Can two people of the same`sex get married? I think

this is another area that the church struggling to reconcile the wording

of a stock `` doctrine with a modern society. There is the battle and

moral conscience. If you bid by the bedside of somebody who is dying and

Ince very ill `` and is very ill, it is a terrible thing to watch.

Pressure could be put on people who are suffering, so there is a moral

ambiguity there. I wonder if it is a generational thing? Do you notice

from your readers if they have different views on assisted dying? I

think young people, it is difficult to make a generalisation, but they

are generally less against it. The people with a strong religious

faith, it is a strong, in doctrine belief. And the ethics of it, if you

set religion aside, whether you allow it. Just to have the

guidelines in place so that they are watertight and can't be applied to

somebody you isn't, as you say, terminally ill. Let's move on. In

the FT. This is quite interesting. The article here begins with the

unlikely question that could save your life. Next time a colleague

offers you a lift home, ask him or her if he or she paid his or her

electricity bill on time. It's an extraordinary idea. If you pay your

bill on time and you are careful with your money, you are probably a

safer bet to insure. I think it's quite obvious. If you are crazy and

reckless and whatever. Probably you will do lots of other things that

aren't very good behaviour. If you are quite cautious person then

surely you are more likely to be a maverick driver. I think these

things are already factored into calculations when you take a loan

out. People should be used to the idea that their previous activities,

their previous liability or proof of their previous liability gets looked

at when they take out an insurance policy all when somebody invests

trust in them in some way or another. The article goes on to

quote Big Brother watch. The way companies go about collecting this

information goes far beyond what customers expect. But expose any of

us really have a grip on how much information is really out there

about us. I think that is the point. While I think they are wrong to say

that companies shouldn't be able to use this, consumers should have

access to the same information themselves. I think the article

draws attention to people who buy houses that are more prone to

burglary, for example. Insurers get that information because they can

crunch all sorts of data together and work out that a certain house is

prone to burglary. A person who has put a lot of money down house does

not know that. If the companies are going to have access to this then

consumers should do. I think were all unaware of how much companies

share data among themselves. It's all those little boxes that you take

at the end of those questionnaires. Actually there is a lot of data that

we say can go out there and the companies share, but they don't tell

us. You only have to see when he to websites that there are personalised

advert selections from companies you have brought forth from before.

There are so much information. Let's look at the Independent. She was the

most precious thing in the world to us, we had waited so long for her.

There is a picture therefore a girl in intensive care. She was playing

in her garden, this baby that her parents had waited so long to have

after IVF treatment, we are looking here at once again a picture of a

Palestinian child, but of course Israel feels that by sending its

rockets in it is trying to protect its own children. There are

statistics here that there are 103 dead, but no less than 7% of the 700

injured are boys, girls or women. 70%. That is a huge amount. What's

interesting about this story is that the conflicts you hear on militia,

the weapons, but there are so many human faces full stop over the past

three weeks there were the three teenage Israeli boys who were

killed. There was the Arab teenager. There is such a human face of young

people that have been brought to the fore in all of this. Its

controversial what Benjamin Netanyahu said. His argument is that

we are using missiles to protect our people. His argument is that the

militants in the Gaza Strip are using people to protect their

missiles. There we have, written large, is the differing view on how

both sides are approaching this conflict. Yet Athere is a huge

debate here over who the aggressor is. Stories and photos like this, as

well as individual tragedies, are part of a bigger battle for public

opinion. Both in Gaza and in Israel. The Israelis have also been

releasing their own images and pictures and in some cases videos to

try and show that they have not been targeting areas that in fact they

have been trying to avoid civilians. There is an immense sort of, P R

Waugh. `` PR war, going on. The blast came straight to our house and

I saw my daughter lying in blood because she was playing in their

garden. It wasn't even a direct hit on their home, the sheer force of

this explosion was enough to cause this terrible damage to her. We

don't even know whether she will make a full recovery. And they told

her not to go far away from home because they thought she would be

safe will stop the irony was she was in her grandparent's back garden.

Apparently that's why a lot of children have been injured, because

they are scared to leave their houses. And you just don't know how

to put a stop to it. Although there is an offer of international

mediation, it is buy that will be taken up just yet. As move on to the

Guardian. Cameron has had quite a lot of criticism for not having many

women in his Cabinet. He looks like he might be trying to correct that.

It does need to be the right women. We recently did a survey, what was

fascinating is all these young women that are desperate to vote in the

next election have no faith whatsoever in politicians. They

think they are sleazy, self serving, it's about egos, they don't feel

they relate to their lives in anyway whatsoever. The things that young

women and young people are worried about are things like there lack of

money, housing, issues getting on the housing ladder. I think this is,

they refer to people in the Cabinet as the old labs. With those

perceptions change but Mark would people be any less likely to vote if

there were women politicians in the Cabinet, who might be regarded as

equally self`serving if that is how politicians are seen will stop is

interesting, I would be interested to see what your readers think. A

lot of the scandals involve men, don't they. We asked people who they

are admired and they admired people like Margaret Thatcher, Angela

Merkel, Hillary Clinton, much more than any male MPs or politicians in

the UK. So you keep a close eye on the sort of thing, Jeremy, with your

column. Who are the frontrunners amongst the women sued to get into

the Cabinet? I think Nicky Morgan is one to watch for promotion. Another

one is Estha McVey. She is particularly good at putting her

ideas across. There is a charge she might even be welfare secretary.

Gosh, that would be quite a promotion, wouldn't it? I wonder

whether the fact that you was a TV presenter, because she's used to

talking in front of cameras. It will be UNIX. Don't say that. `` it will

be you, next. The Daily Telegraph have a lot to

work with with Louis Suarez. There is a matador and April in the ring,

and the caption, I was going to watch Suarez play Barcelona, but I'm

far too sweet `` squeamish. This will follow him to Barcelona, won't

it? I think the habit certainly will. I believe he has been banned

for four months, hasn't he? Presumably he will have to take a

break before he goes out there. The Mac is all we have time for. We'll

be back with the headlines. Stay with us at BBC News.

At 11.00pm, tens of thousands more people at risk

of type`2 diabetes could be given weight`loss surgery on the NHS.

But coming up next it's time for Sportsday.