25/02/2014 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. Presented by Clive Myrie.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/02/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



That's all coming up in Sportsday in around 15 minutes.


Hello, welcome to our lock ahead to watt papers will bring us tomorrow.


With me, Hugh Muir, from the Guardian and Deborah Haynes the


defence editor at the Times. Let's look at the front pages now.


Start with the telegraph, it leads with the ruling on the Hyde Park


bombing. Victims of IRA bomb cheated of justice by a monumental blunder,


it says. That sentiment is echoed on the front of the Metro. The Mail


leads with a different story, that of a vulnerable man who was dealt a


fatal blow after he complained about a cyclist on the pavement. The


victim's mother said the four-year sentence handed down was a sick


joke. The Express has a health story on the front page. There could be a


new powerful injection to ease arthritis pain.


We begin with the story that's dominated the news today, victims of


IRA bomb cheated of justice by a monumental blunder, this in relation


to the Hyde Park bombing in 1982. Yes, it's quite a reminder of the


horrors that took place during the conflict and it's quite a puzzling


ruling that's been made, that's only really been made public today about


how Mr Downey was, by mistake, sent a letter basically an amnesty letter


as part of the peace settlement, following the Good Friday Agreement


that meant that he had been - no charges were going to be brought


against him. He took that letter in good faith, thought he'd been


cleared, came to the UK to go on holiday to Greece last year, was


arrested and they've been trying to tussle at the Old Bailey, whether or


not he could be prosecuted. The judge ruled that it would be a


threat to the peace settlement and would be unfair to carry on with the


prosecution. Obviously, he's never been found guilty of anything, but


he's never stood trial. He's always denied the charges. This is what the


judge said, he said this last week, it's only today we can talk about


the details of the case. He said that the need to prosecute those


accused of serious crime was outweighed by the public interest in


holding officials of the state to promises they've made in full


understanding of what is involved in if the barringin. The -- in the


bargain. The suggestion is that this letter was sent erroneously to this


man, but the IRA partly decommissioned their weapons on the


understanding that these letters would be September out and this man


-- sent out and this man came to the UK on the understanding he wouldn't


be prosecuted. There are two issues. On one hand, you can understand as a


matter of policy a deal might be made whereby people are told they


won't be prosecuted and they will be part of the deal that's brought


peace to Northern Ireland. On the other hand, if he was never supposed


to be pa of that deal, if he wasn't one of those people designated as


being on the run and therefore bundled into that deal, if the


letter was sent in error, I think it's a bit a struggle to say, well,


why has the judge decided to deal with it in this way. Now it's going


to be a transparency issue. I think there's now a job for the media and


for politicians to really explain this to the public. I think the


public are going to have a lot of difficulty understanding this. And


the families as well. Especially, part of the problem is that not a


lot of people knew about this deal. I mean, apparently the suggestion is


that it was a deal cooked up by the, or sorted out by the British


Government and Republicans and unionists had no idea what was going


on. Exactly. There will be questions asked about who the other people


were who've been granted this amnesty. And also, how it could be


that the letter was obviously sent in 2007, I think it said, and it


seems as though the error was realised but why that wasn't


communicated and they knew that there was a warrant out for his


arrest at the time. So it seems as though, something's gone badly


wrong. It says that the Police Service for Northern Ireland have


launched an investigation. We will have to see what that discovers.


What the public think ises going to be key here -- thinks is going to be


key here. We will want a die section of the judgment, disection of the


judgment, because we need to understand the legal thinking of the


judge dealing with this case in the way he has. We also need a detailed


explanation from the Crown as to why they felt that they could not or


should not continue an appeal. Because, it's because they've


dropped the appeal that this story has reached the public domain today.


Clearly, they must have had reasons to think that Mr Justice Sweeney's


reasoning was logical and sensible. They will have to explain that as


well. The public are going to want to faux the details. As you say,


transpatience -- want to know the details


The vast majority of people will agree that the Good Friday Agreement


was a good thing and is a good thing and is cementing peace in Northern


Ireland. But this makes people wonder - well, what else was part of


the deal to get Good Friday going? What else happened behind-the-scenes


that we don't know about? You can see this as being sensible as a


matter of political poll soy. Someone may -- policy. Someone may


make a decision that for the greater good, someone may have done dreadful


things but we need to move on. Ly what they decided. You may make that


decision. But does it make legal sense? I think that's what we have


to find out. What is the legal reasoninger as opposed to the policy


reasoning. I think that's right. It's exactly that point of that


balance that you talk about of the public interest against the


integrity of civil servants. That doesn't sit very comfortably. I


wonder whether this is the end of it. The judge has made his ruling.


There are other courts and higher courts. One wonders if particularly


the families of those affected won't take it further. I suspect this will


run and run. Sticking with the telegraph. Flood defence. Yeah, this


is a really interesting story. Obviously... Money's no object in


dealing with the floods. We heard this from the Prime Minister. In his


wellies. He's been at pains to say under the coalition Government,


spending has been increased or, you know, has been more than in the past


and there haven't been cuts. There's a study that's been done by UK


Statistics Authority, which contradicts this claim and says that


the budget for flood defences has been cut by nearly a quarter of a


billion pounds, so ?250 million. That supports a study by the House


of Commons library, which also found that over the period, the four years


up to 2015, less money has been spent on flood defences and


apparently this whole issue is going to be debated in the Commons


tomorrow. I imagine it will be an uncomfortable time for the Prime


Minister. They will have to find this money, after what he said. It


will be pretty embarrassing. I was in the Commons just a couple of


weeks ago when they were talking about the figures here. There was a


ding dong about how much was being spent and whether or not there have


been cuts and whether or not what the Government was spending were


only making up for the cuts they had already made. One has to say the


Government seems to have problems in terms of statistics. This isn't the


first time that the UK Statistics Authority have taken them to task.


Got their numbers mixed up. Iain Duncan Smith' department was taken


to task by the Statistics Authority earlier this week. It becomes a


thing about credibility. Particularly on an issue like the


floods that obviously and quite rightly made very many people angry.


In all those Conservative constituencieses. -- constituencies.


This is not a headline the Prime Minister will welcome. There it is.


That's the Daily Telegraph. We will go to the inside of the


Metro, teenage pregnancy falls again to a record low. Yeah, it's a good


story. We seem to be making some headway. Obviously this is something


that's been concerning policy makers for some time. What we're told now


is that the conception rate stands at 27. 9 births per thousand for


girls aged 15 to 17. That's good. These are figures from the Office


for National Statistics. There's a caveat, the decrease does not bring


us in line with other western European countries, such as the


Netherlands, that's only six six births. So far behind in the first


place. We seem to be retrieving a very bad situation, but it still


isn't great. I don't know if any of the other papers have picked up on


it on their inside pages, the Metro has this. It's an interesting story


because obviously, while you have got the drop in the teenage


pregnancies, there's this massive rise in older women getting


pregnant. So it really seems we're having a big shift to enable women


to maybe have more of a career before they start becoming parents


and I think it's a really positive news story. Any explanation as to


why this is happening, why we're getting better at sorting this issue


out? It's to do with education. That's a big factor. And because


there's more opportunities for women, young women, you know it's


not just about leaving school and having a family straight away.


There's more chances available to you. And also, greater protection


with contraception, obviously, talking about terminations, so


there's just more education out there. That means young women are


better informed to make choices. We're getting over the squeamishness


we've had about dealing with this properly in schools. Because there's


always been a reticence to tackle it head on. I think in some areas of


the country this has been such a serious problem they've had to do


something. Hopefully, this is the result of that public health work


and education work that we're doing now. OK. Let's go on to the Express.


Harman won't say sorry in child sex row. A story that is really dogging


her, her husband, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt. Clearly what


happened today when she expressed regret, but still didn't apologise


for her role in the national council of civil liberties and its link, has


been an attempt to lance the boil, if you like. She will be looking to


see if that has happened. Perhaps be heartened it's not on the front of


the Mail again. It's interesting they haven't gone for it, they've


another front page we will look at. They've gone with another story.


What will be important for her is to see if Labour circles the wagons,


because one of the things that happened at the weekend even Labour


leaning commentators were saying you have to deal with this, address


this. Will they be supportive? If they are she may be able to get


through this and the Mail will move to something else. She will be


looking to signs as to the dynamic now. Ed Miliband has made it clear


he gives her a pun -- 100% his support. That's not like a football


manager being told we give the manager 100% and they are out the


next day. They sometimes do politicians, and then something else


comes out and that support dilutes to about 95% and down to 60. I don't


think that alone is enough to give you superconfidence. I don't


understand why she can't just say sorry for the association. I very


much regret, it's that one step down. It's what politicians do. They


never just say - speak simply and say sorry, OK, you know, for the


association part. It's what the Daily Mail would want her to say.


That would be the end. It's not as if she's done anything wrong. Would


it? The suggestion is that - the Mail is going after the NCCL, it's


an organisation those on the right perhaps didn't fall in love with


back in the day. A civil liberties o. If Harriet Harman is to say


sorry, potentially reflecting on the work she did. They're able to attack


senior Labour politicians and also to attack liberty, I mean the Mail,


I think with what Liberty have done, that organisation isn't being


attacked. It's really between the politicians and the Mail. The fact


it's The Mail is crucial because there is no way that Harriet Harman


or Jack Dromey is going to want to make a fulsome apology even if they


felt that way because it's The Mail. I find it difficult to see Ed


Miliband parting company with Harriet Harman, not least because


it's The Mail. All right. The Mail very brief, a few seconds. A


vulnerable man's life ended by a punch after he complained about a


cyclist on a pavement and he got four years in jail. It's an


horrendous story. A split second moment ending a life. This poor man,


he has as spergers -- aspergers syndrome and was keen on rules. The


cyclist was on the pavement and he objected. The guy who did it is only


given a four-year sentence and could be out in two years. We will discuss


this further in an hour's time when you are back to look at more of the


stories behind the headlines here. Stay with us for that and stay with


us, because at 11.00pm we will have more on that police error that led


to that man being accused of the Hyde Park bombing actually not


facing prosecution now. That's coming up. Now it's time for


Sportsday. Hello and welcome to Sportsday. I am


John Watson. Here is what's on the way: Manchester United are beaten by


Olympiakos in the first leg of their last 16 tie in the Champions


Download Subtitles