27/01/2016 The Papers

controversial comments. That is all coming up in sports day in the next

15 minutes straight after the papers. -- Papers.

Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers

With me are the International Editor of the Economist Helen Joyce and

We start with a mirrored that leads with the convicted murderer has

admitted to the first-time of the killing of the schoolgirl. He says

he is also behind a string of other attacks. The Independent headlines

urges Cameron to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The Financial Times

talks about Google and Apple fighting back after a row over the

amount of tax paid by the technology giant. The Telegraph leads on the

findings of a scientific review that is found that some antidepressants

can raise the risk of suicide. There is the picture of grandparents of

the severely disabled teenager who won the battle against the bedroom

tax. Britain's role in Yemen attacks are under scrutiny. The Daily Mail

says that David Cameron must not taking 3000 migrant children. And

the Times reports on the top investor or in Google calling on

them to pay more tax in the UK. Top investor turns on Google over

tax. This is the most interesting story we have seen yet. You see

these things that they are called in to decide how much they should pay.

Long-term, you would not. Zero after year it seems grossly -- year after

year it seems so grossly unfair. He wants to know what the company he is

investing in is going to pay and that is better to everybody in the

long run. But somebody in the company is coming out saying that

creative tax accounting, and there is nothing wrong with it in terms of

the law, I quickly added, means that shareholders get a lot more pack, --

a lot more cash in their pocket. They have an obligation to maximise

these kind of things. Absolutely what the shareholder is worried

about is that ?120 million worth of shares in Google's parent company.

He's worried about a backlash that people will be so upset that it will

be even worse for the shareholder. What strikes me about this is the

arbitrary nature as to what is happening at the moment. The focus

on these giants, but what about these other companies are getting

away with it. What we want is a framework for these corporate giant.

What we need is a framework... I was going to give you a framework. We

need Britain to buy into it. And the deal is agreed by the G20 nations in

Paris due to concerns about these companies and how they move them

from one country to another. If you only have one tried to deal with

this, the T20I'm now on board. And as he was saying about the

shareholder worried about a backlash, the European Commission is

looking into the monopoly on commission. If that was opened up

the board have alternatives and we could have a view on these attacks.

It is absolutely vital for capitalism to work. There has to be

an implicit contact between the consumers and the big corporate

giants were becoming eager in a globalised economy. That revelation

needs to include sensible agreements and good regulation if they are

under monopoly situations that undermine the consumer. I know

enough about the search engine market that there is potential. I

know that advertisers have to be on board with Google... You can't say

this monopoly just because consumers like it. Let us go to the inside

page of the Financial Times. Government makes tax law and Google

complies. This is about the guy who was the head of communications at

Google and he is coming out swinging saying that Google have not done

anything wrong but have followed the law. It is difficult for us to read

this with any information that we're bringing to it. Company SAP

confidentiality agreements and he is saying is that the 130 million that

they paid is the right amount and then to a paid. He is saying that

they made their profits elsewhere. That may be right, but there are

plenty of companies saying that they have, but they might rented out or

pay for it in a different spot and paid the money abroad. We can't tell

and we need transparency. We have the news of Facebook's profits for

the last three months of last year. ?1 billion. Guess how much tax they

paid last year and they did it legally, I have to add that point,

it is all legal and above board. Either sticking suspicion that is

?4000. I -- I have a sneaking. Are they paying a lot of money

elsewhere? I would love to know. On that letter that was written to the

Financial Times, they said they are American company and that is where

they create their intellect or property and where they have their

value, and they pay $3.3 billion in tax. We don't know whether that is

credible. It is the transparency that is the problem. This agreement

with the G20 means we might get a bit more transparency on that. Why

we must not take 3000 migrant children because it would encourage

new influxes. I fundamentally disagree and I want a caveat that

with the perspective that when it comes to decisions of this time it

is always vital to take into account the unintended consequences. When

the German chancellor said we're going to be ethical and open it did

lead to a big influx and hopeful people from a war-torn country,

risking their lives with unscrupulous brokers would get them

to these places. David Cameron has invested taxpayers money in the

refugee camps in that area is. That is a sensible policy. However, 3000

vulnerable children... No one does that alone. I also think we are not

spending enough in the camps. More than any other EU country. There are

literally millions of people in terrible conditions and the small

amount of money stops people getting ill but we could spend a lot more

money and stop people coming further on. These migrant children make the

think about the unaccompanied Jordan in the Second World -- unaccompanied

children in the Second World War. There may be the possibility with

parents saying... I know for a fact that that happens in Eritrea. A

country where conscription is the norm and it lasts for ever. The same

thing happens in Central America escaping from drug gangs and the

world's most oppressive governments. What we're seeing is the unintended

consequences and economic migrants in there as well because they can.

Nobody is sending their children unless they think they are going to

die. Let us go to the Telegraph. Depression drugs make suicide more

possible. Many people have been saying this for many years and we

now seem to have a study that is confirming this. And yet why do we

not know that earlier? Why did they not show this important piece of

data is. And the reason is a familiar story of pharmaceutical

companies covering up the negative consequences of the drug. They only

work in establishing important data is if they are conducted. The other

problem is that they want to publish them. If it undermines the

credibility of the drug, don't publish them, do a bit more and hope

you get the results that you won't. That is not science that is a lie.

Strong language and you have written a book on this kind of thing. On the

manipulation of not just to sticks but the way that big companies can

perhaps, ignore the lessons of the past, or the lessons of their own

research. The clinical try has been a huge blessing to the development

of the drug. The problem is when they are read. I write about the

human factors and how they are delivered and the humans do it and

also the errors that often take place around the world that are

concealed. Partly because people are worried about being blamed. They

just don't want this to happen again and again. It is terribly sad

because families have children who have died because of this. It is an

ethical scandal that this information has not come to light

until now. I suppose that this kind of research has got the University

of London behind it so its voracity is there. Government have to act on

this. We don't know who because there are two levels. Should we not

be prescribing these things and the second one is a much more systematic

thing about how we regulate drug trials more generally. Should all be

published and you have to publish the results. End this particular

bias. URA former sportsman -- you are a. I played table tennis. Table

tennis is a sport. Careful! Very funny because she claims that she

has more passports than Jason Bourne. But she is a British citizen

now. We have claimed her. The first time in three decades that we've had

a female... Grew up in Australia until the age of 14 to Hungary and

parents. I can see the link between the two. We sent a reporter to

interview her parents and the mother is a dentist and the father works in

a gym. They are very settled. Let us be clear that she is British. It is

a lovely story because it has come out of nowhere but shows how

confident with a sense of destiny that she seems to have is a powerful

thing. Apparently a lot of the work that has been done with her as being

psychologist over the last few months and that is what has changed

things around for her. You were talking to one of the most ignorant

people about sport. I have one thing to tell you about this. I totally

agree with claiming all of these sport people. We don't get many

people. When you do you grab them with two hands and you just hold

on. That is the end of your contribution. They could do better

revealing school reports on the rich and famous. You are one of the

smartest women that I know. Thank you. So your school report must have

been top grades all the way along. I did very bad in home economics. We

had criteria on effort. Dragging me towards... Know we never had ten is

too bad -- tends. Don't try to start this up. I left school with really

poor qualifications but I taught myself the top levels. I was so into

table tennis and the rest is history. Forget Churchill. As he

ever been on? Know he has not been in that chair. -- no.