13/02/2016 The Papers

Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers

With me are the political commentator

Jo Phillips and the Political Editor of the Sunday People, Nigel Nelson.

According to the Sunday Times the boss of EasyJet has warned that

cheap flights are at risk if the UK leaves the European Union.

Ahead of the EU referendum the Mail on Sunday says a senior aide to

Angela Merkel claims the UK cannot survive on its own.

"Public faith in Cameron drops" is the Independent

on Sunday's headline, with a new poll claiming 6 out of 10

expect the PM not to secure good deal in Brussels talks this week.

The Telegraph claims the government could soon fund new onshore wind

Should we start with the Observer? It is just in. There is a lot of EU,

and this paper is focusing on Jeremy Corbyn. It is interesting, another

battle with his own party. Apparently what Jeremy Corbyn is

going to do is before David Cameron goes off to negotiate in Europe, he

is going to make a big speech and he is going to say that European

migration is a good thing, but that is what we should be encouraging,

that we shouldn't be discriminating against Eastern Europeans. Well...

It won't cut very much ice with people who are not very keen on

migration. This is the weakest card of it in campaigners. 50,000 people

who come from abroad and keep the NHS going, those other positives.

The question is the timing, whether it is a clever idea to be doing it

this week, maybe further down the road. Do you agree? It is fine to

Jeremy Corbyn to be doing it because he wants to make some kind of

statement, but it is David Cameron's worst nightmare, because

this will just fuel the people who feel that this whole debate is now

focusing on migration and borders, and free movement of people and the

refugee crisis that is going on. This will now paint a picture that

you have a Labour Party that wants a free for all, because that is how it

will be portrayed, because it doesn't help it in campaign --be in

campaign. There have been countless debates, with many people agree with

Jeremy Corbyn, a lot of people thinking we can't bring any more

migrants, and people who think we should welcome them. Migration is

probably the most contentious issue with in this whole thing and I think

the difficulty comes down to... It is not about racism, it is about

somebody who either imagines that his job has been taken by an Eastern

European worker. It is that kind of problem. My argument would be that

the intervention has to come in at some point, but not quite yet. It is

not just about the migrant crisis, let's go to the Independent on

Sunday. They have gone to a poll. This is before a proper debate, and

its headline... Nearly half the voters say that the UK would have

more control of borders outside the EU. Quite revealing poll about the

state of play now in the referendum. As far as the trouble with borders,

that is quite clear. If we are out of the EU we will be able to control

our board is much better because EU migrants won't be able to come in as

a right as they do at the moment. That is sort of stating the obvious.

People seem to have no faith in David Cameron's ability to

renegotiate the deal this week, with six out of ten saying he won't come

back with anything. I'm not sure it all means a great deal. I don't

think people know what he is going to negotiate anyway. It is one of

those things were actually it is very hard to ask people what they

think about something when it is not clear what is being negotiated. That

won't be the question we will be asked when the referendum happens.

Interestingly, if 58% of people say David Cameron will get a bad deal,

but then you are almost evenly split on people saying that the economy is

better being in the EU or out of it. Clearly there is a muddle and

confusion, but there is some comfort that the government in this that

there is still a 14 point lead over Labour. It is just that David

Cameron's personal rating has fallen considerably. It is an interesting

poll but it is way ahead of when the argument has been started proper,

but the argument has of course already started in some ways. Let's

have a look at the Mail on Sunday. This is an argument between British

MP Bill Cash, and a German MP, who is saying that if we leave, Europe

will impose crippling trade tariffs on Britain. Maybe, maybe not. I

think it is unlikely. I think if Europe would pull in its horns and

say we want to keep outsiders out... This is just a row between

two MPs. It is not the position of Germany, is it? I don't think so.

You would think it looking at that front page. I don't think he is part

of Germany's diplomatic corps. He has form attacking David Cameron, he

accused him of trying to black out the EU. He then mocked the

flip-flopping MP. In 2014 he said he would get a bloody nose if he curbed

immigration without EU permission. This is a three page story based on

argument between two people that frankly are not hugely important. We

haven't even got started yet! There are some other stories knocking

around. We had to read this one carefully, the Sunday Times. The

headline, Osborne profits as firm pays no corporation tax. This is an

interesting story. Only because I think it is again, and we often say

this on this programme, quite often the headlines they're very little

resemblance or relationship to the actual story. Nigel and I both know

that that is the Saabs, not the person writing the story, quite

often. You can't say that because you have to go to work tomorrow.

This is a story about the Chancellor George Osborne who has shared in the

dividend payment in the company that his family owns. The company has not

paid any UK corporation tax for the last seven years. If you read it all

the way through, what you will discover is that company records

show that the Chancellor holds less than 1% shares in this company and

he got a dividend of about ?1200. The idea that this is some sort of

walloping great windfall from a company that hasn't paid corporation

tax because it hasn't registered any profits, I would expect a bit better

of the Sunday Times. But it is a story that pushes all the right

buttons. It got you reading the whole lot, didn't it? That headline!

That is my argument. It is so easy, that every story we look at every

time we do this, and everytime anyone else does it, you look at the

headline, you see them on the television, and actually, is that

actually the story? We are going to stick with the Sunday Times. Another

interesting story, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe is to face the widower of

Lord Britain. There have been long campaigns for him to apologise --

the widow. Yes, this is about the investigation into her husband. If

you are going to investigate crimes like this, then you have to do the

whole thing properly. On the basis of that, if you have evidence that

you believe in, do you then apologise for collecting that

evidence after the event? Even if you haven't got evidence, there has

or has been an argument that it is really important for the them to be

believed. That is the other danger. How many other victims won't come

forward because of what has happened? It is very difficult, that

anybody who is innocent of a crime like this, it is appalling that they

find themselves in the public eye and in the middle of a police

investigation. But does that mean that the police shouldn't

investigate? Could they investigate without the person being named? In

that case they're going to a different area about whether or not

we name people before they end up in court, and why then should a sex

crime be particular? If you were a police officer dishonesty would be

quite serious. Once you start going through the different grades of

crime you could argue that no one should be named until the trial.

Police have agreed that they won't allow MPs to be named if they are

arrested, unless it is in connection with something they have done in

office. The other danger with not naming people is that part of the

justice system is that justice is seen to be done. If you have a trial

where the defendant is anonymous, it won't be seen to be done. I think in

this particular case, they are damned if they do and damned if they

don't, for the reasons you have just said. They paraded this alleged

victim, called Nick, who had apparently come forward with this

credible evidence. They didn't have to make that public, actually. They

could have arrested or investigated... Police always

maintained that they don't release the names of suspects. We are

journalists, we can draw our own conclusions. This comes down to the

fact that Lord Britain was not told that there wouldn't be any charges

before he died -- Leon Brittan. Do you believe this is a debate that is

needed? Yes, I do. There is a review... It is very difficult for

them. It is very difficult for anybody, but the sooner justice

Cotes Art can get on with the proper enquiry. That is the key to it. What

seems to have happened is that what we do know is that there were

paedophile rings, there was an establishment cover-up. What we

don't know if the extent of it, and quite clearly certain people who

have been named will have imparted that. We only have a couple of

minutes left. A couple of interesting stories on the front

page of the Sunday Telegraph tomorrow. Talk us through this home

saliva test for cancer. This is not one of the stories you would

normally see on the front page of the Express. This seems to be quite

sensible. The University of California have done a lot of

research saying that tumour DNA is in bodily fluids like saliva, so it

would in fact give you the ability to have a liquid biopsy, instead of

going through the often traumatic and painful and uncomfortable

surgical procedure. This is 100% accurate. If you stop and think

about it, given that you can get DNA from a tiny bit of saliva, it makes

sense that you would be able to do this. But this will have a huge

impact on people. It can be carried out at home, by a dentist, Hugh who

are hugely good at looking for cancers. You might not want to do

it, but you might be worried about the spread of it. In alternative to

a biopsy you would definitely want to do it, and if it means you don't

have to have a biopsy. In future they are saying it could be for

multiple tests. I don't know if I would like to do that. But if it

makes somebody do it rather than... Early diagnosis is so important with

cancer. We just had time to talk about Chris Grayling and Michael

Gove. The Valentine couple of the night. This is the present justice

secretary saying he agrees with the previous justice secretary, Chris

Grayling, and they have written a joint letter together saying that

they have kissed and made up. It is tough love. It takes us back to the

EU a bit, because Chris Grayling has been widely tipped to run the Grexit

campaign. And we still don't quite know how Michael Gove will go. It

may well be that this new friendship... At the moment Michael

Gove seems to be veering towards Brexit as well. Thank you both,

always a pleasure. More headlines at the top of the hour. Next, film

review. -- The Film Review.