27/12/2013 The Papers


No need to wait to see what's in the papers - tune in for a lively and informed conversation about the next day's headlines.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/12/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



position. We have news of Andy Murray's


comeback match and the results of tonight's Rugby union games, or


after The Papers. Hello and welcome to our look ahead


to what the the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. With me are


author Ian Leslie and media commentator Neil Wallis.


The Telegraph leads with an attack on the RSPCA by the head of the


Countryside Alliance, who says the charity has turned into a "sinister


and nasty" organisation, more interested in animal rights than


promoting welfare. It also has a photograph on its


front page of David Cameron being berated by an angry victim of the


flooding in Kent. The Times reports that the


Government is determined to block EU plans to introduce new human rights,


such as the right to marry. The Guardian leads with warnings to


David Cameron, from what it calls a leading moderniser, that he is


guilty of "pandering to UKIP prejudices" and championing a


"negative and uninspiring" form of politics.


The Daily Mail is concerned that Britain is now Europe's most


overcrowded country. And it says Andy Murray will be snubbed in the


New Year Honours list. The Independent has another flood


victim confronting the Prime Minister, and on its inside pages, a


call from the children's tsar for smacking to be made illegal.


The Financial Times reports that borrowing costs have hit a two-year


high, as investors are betting on a brighter economic outlook for 2014.


And, there is more bad weather to come, according to the Express,


which forecasts that wild storms and travel misery will ruin New Year


celebrations for many of us. Let's begin and have a look at


those. We will start with the Telegraph macro and that unusual


story about the RS PCA being called a sinister and nasty organisation.


What do you make of that? The head of the countryside Alliance has done


an interview with the Telegraph where he sounded off at the RS PCA,


The National Trust, and it sounds like he is quite angry at the


moment. He attacked the RSPCA in particular for being an organisation


which is now more concerned with animal rights than with animal


welfare, more concerned about engaging in legal battles than


actually making sure that animals are OK. It is a story I have not


seen elsewhere. I think it is very important that we read out the name


of this gentleman. He is General Sir Barney White Spiller. Sounds like


something out of the Vicar of Diddley, doesn't it? He does


basically have a serious point, because the RSPCA has becoming


creasing the political. It has run two or three major court cases, and


was absolutely lacerated eye a judge after spending I think in excess of


?300,000 chasing a case involving fox-hunting. -- lacerated by a


judge. It seems to have taken one of those terms whereby organisations


decide they have to reinvent themselves to some extent. They have


gone political. Significantly political. Having said that, General


Sir Barney, as was pointed out, is lashing out at everybody. Basically


anybody who lives further than Hillingdon or Croydon is regarded as


a Neanderthal by the BBC, apparently. You are enjoying this,


aren't you? I might repeat that. Rather unfair one country file.


Apparently there is not enough on shooting on the country file


programme. Do you think this will affect the RSPCA and fundraising?


The membership of the RSPCA is descending at a heck of a rate but


they are incredibly wealthy, so what they are doing is using some of that


wealth that they have gathered over many years to try to reinvent


themselves and become, if you like a left of centre countryside Alliance.


It is a fairly dangerous way to go, I would have thought. I do not know


if it is about being left of centre, but it seems campaigns based on


legal action, as opposed to straight animal welfare. That is a new


direction and does have its downside. Let's move on, on to the


Independent, which has a front page about smacking. The headline is that


the children's czar once smacking to be illegal. I am not a great


believer in the state being allowed to tell us how to live the minutiae


of our lives. I have two children. The idea of smacking them is apt


warrant. However, it is a potential deterrent to children. -- I find the


idea at the horror and. I do not think it is for the state to tell us


what goes on in the family home. Child abuse should of course be


cracked down on but there is many a mother watching this has lightly


smacked their child's but on occasion, to hurry them along, to


stop them misbehaving, or to get them on the naughty step. I trust


the good instincts of the parents of this country more than some


interfering woman called Maggie Atkinson. A former teacher. I would


love to know if she has children. I have tended to find that when you


actually have children your views about many of these issues are more


roundly formed. I think it is actually a bit more complicated than


you suggest. On the one hand, making the state interfere in people's


private homes can lead to all sorts of worries and insecurities and


problems and it is an invasion of personal freedom. On the other


hand, if people are smacking their children and then they take it a


little too far, how do they know where to draw the line? It has been


going on for rather a lot of years, you know. We have been parents for


many years. Generally, where there is abuse that is of significance, it


should have been picked up earlier and should have been dealt with.


Abuse that leads to the stories of which we have read far too many has


generally gone on complete the under the awareness, shall we say, of


social services and so forth. My basic belief is that I trust most


ordinary people to live their lives and know how to bring up their


children. On that bombshell, we moved to the Times. This is an


interesting story, the headline, ministers to block right to marry.


This is a dispute, somewhat arcane, a legal dispute between our


government and the EU. The EU has this Charter of fundamental rights


that it is trying to introduce into UK courts. The last Labour


government secured an opt out from it and this government is pushing


back. I am not sure of the legal ins and outs of this. What I think is


important is that this is part of the political climate around the


run-up to the European elections in May. I suspect this is a story that


has been very much pushed by the government, showing that it is tough


against EU, because so much of the argument will be about the EU. That


headline about the EU and Britain has been going on and on. There is a


theme through quite a lot of the papers in different areas where you


touch on this issue of EU interference in the way we live our


lives here. Actually, I agree, I would have thought this is a godsend


for the government, for UKIP, and if there is a way to prod people in


this country it is to say that the EU is going to interfere even more


into their lives or the British way of life. There is a big reaction


against it. Every poll shows that the British public resent it, do not


want it. I do not even know what the right to marry means. It is not


really explained in this story. Unless it is on the inside pages. It


sounds a little legalistic. There are a variety of things mentioned.


Guarantees of housing assistance. Guarantees of fair working


conditions. There are 52, I think it says, no, 54 extra human is that


they want to impose on us. I just don't think it is for them to


interfere. I never elected a load of Eurocrats in Brussels to run my


life. You elected governments that decided to Elektra presented tips to


do so. The last time anybody had a vote on whether or not to stay in


Europe was actually in 1960, I think, and I was about 17. I doubt


whether most people watching this TV programme have actually used a vote


to say, yes, I want to stay in Europe. It will be interesting


whether we get to that stage. It looks like we will do. Maybe. I can


see this has lit the spark. Let's go in the direction of the Guardian.


What is our story that we are going to talk about? This leads from the


last story. This is about a modernising Tory, the part of the


party that David Cameron came from, criticising him for being too right


wing on immigration. He says, stop pandering to UKIP prejudice. This is


really an internal Tory party dispute and Cameron will probably


think it is good news to be criticised from the left of his


party, because this is all part of the climate of opinion leading up to


the European elections, where there will be a lot of jostling for


position in terms of who is the most right wing on immigration.


Renegotiation before referendum possibly. One of the things that did


amuse me about the Guardian's presentation of this, describing him


as a leading moderniser. I am not known for being left of centre and I


am interested in politics, but I have never heard of this


organisation, Bright Blue. I am not sure he is such a major figure. The


head of this organisation seems to be again doing Mr Cameron a great


big favour. Vote bright blue to go green, was it? Onto the Daily Mail.


A story of a very different kind. This is about this worryingly


crowded island. Not that different. Again, more and more front pages


which are in varying ways about immigration. This is about England


being overcrowded. Figures secured apparently by a Tory MP that show


that we are becoming the most overcrowded major country in Europe.


One of the things I like about this story is that this MP, if you look


upon the website they work for you, it turns out that he owns 28 houses.


That is a matter of public record, which he has declared as an


interest. So you can see why this MP would be very concerned about too


many people. That might be a tad harsh. It also says four times as


many people will soon be in the UK as in France, and twice as many as


Germany. They are talking about the number of people per kilometre.


These are House of Commons figures, based on data from the UK and EU


statistical agencies. What it says is that when Labour came to power in


1997, there were 374 people living per acre, per square kilometre,


apologies, in this country. It is now up to 411, since Labour open the


borders. It is predicted, in another 25 years, that it will go up to


something just under 500 per acre, per square kilometre. You have to


understand and accept that that is a lot of people. The question is, why


do they want to come here? Because they think this is a growing


country, presumably, and there is a great safety net that they do not


seem to find in Germany or France, where they could have gone. But an


interesting side issue is that earlier this week there was a report


that said we are going to grow, our GDP will be the biggest in Europe,


partly down to population growth. Thank you very much indeed. They


will be back with us at 11:30pm for another look at the stories making


the news tomorrow. Stay with us on BBC News, because coming up next, it


is Sportsday. Hello and welcome to Sportsday. I'm


Mandy Henry. Coming up: Malky Mackay becomes the sixth Premier League


manager to


Download Subtitles