24/11/2016 The Papers

Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be

With me are Rosamund Urwin, columnist at the London Evening

Standard, and political journalist Sean Dilley.

Tomorrow's front pages, starting with...

Years" is the Metro's headline on the Autumn Statement.

It says inflation will "wipe out wages growth" and quotes analysts

saying it's the worst wages squeeze since World War II.

The Guardian says the squeeze will be the longest in 70 years

and repeats the warning from the Institute for

Fiscal Studies that the effect of Britain leaving the EU will keep

wages below 2008 levels for at least five years.

The Mail's headline is, "Who are they trying to kid?"

It says top economists are accused of Brexit doom-mongering.

Paris terror attackers funded by UK benefits

is the headline in the Telegraph, which reports the trial

The Times reports that failures by the Metropolitan Police

have left "young children at risk of abuse".

A senior policing source tells the paper that "this is the most

damning review in the history of Her Majesty's Inspectorate

It has gathered pace of its own, this inquiry of sexual abuse in the

football. Two more players linked to Newcastle supposed to come out

tomorrow. The fear is we are only just seen the beginning of it.

Absolutely. Here we have got another player, not named, who has contacted

police and making allegations of abuse. It does feel as though we are

seeing a domino effect where people who have not felt able to speak out

suddenly feel that they have to come forward. You think the stigma they

felt they faced for all these years, but at least people are now speaking

out about it. The thing that surprises me is that in a number of

these cases, they are talking about two paedophiles who were convicted.

There was an opportunity for them to come forward and say he abused them.

They only have the confidence to do it do it because someone else came

out and told his story. We look at all the hysterical allegations of

abuse and many institutions have been shown to be fact. We have a

very macho industry here where you have premiership footballers

potentially, possibly billions of pounds at stake, they do not want to

play that aspect of their life out, and it is one of those industries

where do you cool a business or whatever where things are dealt with

in the locker room not the front pages of the paper. Does it surprise

you that we have not had a statement from Crewe Alexandra in particular?

We have heard from one victim today who was part of the historical case

involving this coach and he said they have had 18 years and today

they are saying, we need to consider what we are hearing. It is not a

great look. I think they need to make a statement. They have had all

this time. It is not as though they have had two days, they have had all

these years. But there is a line here is that the number of players

to contact the union is in double figures. So we are talking about

something that seems really quite wide-ranging. Potentially bigger

than Jimmy Savile? It is almost hand on heart is a service. If anybody is

watching now, footballer or anything else, you should not be afraid to

speak out because now more than any other time in the past, people will

listen to you. Unless there is some reason not to, you will be believed

and it will be investigated properly. This absolutely could be

bigger than Jimmy Savile because these people had access to

vulnerable young children who wanted to play the ball. Well, we'll be

investigated properly? The front story on the times, young children

at risk of abuse. This is an investigation looking at historical

cases and saying the Met are not doing a good job. This is utterly

damning. They say three quarters of child protection abuse cases are

poorly handled by the Met police. One of the issues it raises here is

that the force has been more focused on burglary and vehicle theft. Those

things are important but are they as important as child protection? I

would argue absolutely not. And they have only taken a sample of cases

here. We need to hear from the Met whether they think that is fair. But

38 had to be referred for further investigation because they

represented a continued risk the child or children. But a couple of

points need to be made here. Police officers feel it has been

politicised with regards to Tom Winsor, who went on to do a

wide-ranging review of police performance. They feel they have

been openly critical. Last year, H Aussie put out a report saying

firearms holders were likely to be involved in mass shootings and

failures. Ultimately, when you have cuts up to 40%, yes, when somebody

makes these allegations, they need to be investigated, when your house

get burgled, it needs to be investigated. Frankly, the police is

not something you save money on. There is one thing in this story as

well. They picked up two cases and in one of them, officers had wrongly

close the case of the 13-year-old girl believed to be sexually active

with an older man, and did not speak to the child. I think there is an

attitude thing we need to address here. There was a belief that these

were girls who were certain kind of girl. We really have to address

that. If we want people to come forward, they have got to know they

will not be dismissed like that. But you were about resources. No, but

this is politics. Ultimately, the theory is that politics is separate

from policing but the reality is different and you can look back to

when the former Prime Minister David Cameron, for reasons we can

understand, wanted resources put into the investigation of Madeleine

McCann. He had told the Met commissioner to investigate. That

became a massive political issue because theoretically, they are

supposed to be separate. Ultimately, we do not just want a chiropody once

we can see things being investigated. They need to be

properly investigated. Burglaries, car thefts, child protection, all of

it. Trouble is, when you look at the rest of the front pages, there is

not much money around. They talk about borrowing going up. Most

notably, the pay of the lowest paid in the country. The Guardian is not

cheery reading for anyone struggling. Such an all encompassing

phrase, jams. Who are the? Lots of people think they are the jams, even

without... The people who actually applies to, probably a much smaller

group. It is the ISS to say that actually, every household will be

?1000 worse off a year. So even if you are not a jam, I don't know, a

scone or something, people who cannot pay the electricity bill, but

?1000, how many families and households can afford to lose that?

One of the things we are likely to see is rising costs. I thought this

immediately after the EU referendum and I panic bought meat, which

proved to be rather fruitless! But I suppose people will feel those costs

on things like food and electricity. They are. The pressure on sterling.

They will simply see that the bill go up and that is really bad. It

will happen. I travel around the continent a bit and bizarrely...

People said they would not like the British because a Brexit but it has

not been my experience. I was in Romania at the weekend, normally 100

Romanian lei, it is ?105. As it gets more expensive the people, they will

side with Tony Blair, who is saying, we must stop Brexit. Will they know

to attach those two things? I don't know that people think, we will

associated enough to think that. I personally would but, will they

listen to Tony Blair? He is arguing, we need to persuade the public

somehow. Maybe there is some sort of dossier. To persuade the public that

there has been a vote but if we are negotiating on freedom of movement,

access to the single market and how much we are maybe the public of

which we are all members will say, hang on the second, what is the

point of leaving? Will not some people be frustrated? The Telegraph

has the same story. He says he could've held a referendum on the

Lisbon Treaty in 2005 but said he would be likely to lose if he had.

He said, I might lose so will not give you an option on Europe. It is

said we live in a Parliamentary democracy. But at some point, as

David Cameron said, that people needed and wanted a vote on Europe

and that is what they want. So why is Tony Blair weighing in to try and

stop it? It was the seventh most important issue in the last

election. I do not remember is getting a referendum on the top six.

And then of course, not only that, it was fairly low down people's

pecking order but why did Cameron do it? To protect his own party. And it

has worked. We have seen Prime Minister after Prime Minister. It

was a self-inflicted headache on the EU because he mentioned it very

early on but that will be the legacy he has got. Top of the times,

another former Prime Minister weighing in, John Major, who was a

big voice for Remain. The tyranny of the majority must not set Brexit

turns. He is agreeing with Parliamentary democracy there. He is

also saying there is a credible case for a second referendum and

interesting to see Blair and major in such apparent agreement. They all

agree on Europe. One could argue they agree because they have a

deeper insight into this than many of us. His other point here, which

is a fair one, is, why should the 48% also not have a say? The idea or

they should have no say at all is rather ridiculous. Imagine how you

would feel if you were an American voter. 100,000 votes in three states

split Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, you took all three states.

They are now having a recount England's quantum. It is on the

basis they say they could be Russian hackers or whatever. The hackers

said they would attack various systems. It is a machine voting

rather than paper voting. That is the basis of the challenge. But of

course, Mitch and has not declared still and whether we think it is

fair or unfair, a lot of people think, 2 million votes... 126

million people voted in the election. Does that not reflect

everything around the world? How divided we are as a world? And also

we could quite easily have a different conversation here about

America's first female President. Funnily enough, the consensus of

many of the swing voters is, any other candidate potentially, any

other woman, would have beaten Donald Trump. We are out of time. I

wish we could go on. Don't forget, all the front pages

are online on the BBC News website, where you can read a detailed review

of the papers. It's all there for you seven days

a week at bbc.co.uk/papers and you can see us there too

with each night's edition of The Papers being posted

on the page shortly I want to bring you one line of news

that is coming in from the Reuters news agency. Police say there is an

operation