:00:16. > :00:18.Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers
:00:19. > :00:22.With me are broadcaster Shyama Perera and the Guardian's Social
:00:23. > :00:31.One of Google's key advisors has told to
:00:32. > :00:34.the Independent that the ruling allowing people to ask the search
:00:35. > :00:36.engine to remove their personal information changes "everything"
:00:37. > :00:40.The Daily Mail describes letters being sent to taxpayers by HM
:00:41. > :00:44.Recipients are being warned to re`check
:00:45. > :00:47.Polling carried out for the Daily Telegraph suggests that
:00:48. > :00:50.the majority of those who voted for UKIP in the recent European
:00:51. > :00:53.elections do also intend voting for UKIP in the general election.
:00:54. > :00:56.The new leader of the Police Federation has told the Guardian
:00:57. > :01:00.that the days of "scandal" in his organisation must come to an end.
:01:01. > :01:03.House prices will continue soaring for at least another two years,
:01:04. > :01:07.According to the Financial Times, the European Central Bank is next
:01:08. > :01:09.week "poised" to cut interest rates and boost
:01:10. > :01:21.Finally, the Times reports that David Cameron has joined
:01:22. > :01:25.international calls for the death sentence imposed on a woman in Sudan
:01:26. > :01:35.for marrying a Christian to be reversed. So, let's start with UKIP,
:01:36. > :01:38.which is the next chapter of the local and European elections. That
:01:39. > :01:45.is on the front page of the Daily Telegraph. If this poll is to be
:01:46. > :01:50.believed, it will possibly shut up many politicians that still call
:01:51. > :01:54.this a protest vote. I think this is quite interesting because I do think
:01:55. > :02:00.it is a protest vote. This was a poll that was funded by their
:02:01. > :02:05.financial backer, Paul Sykes. We were just saying, it is 37% of UKIP
:02:06. > :02:10.voters have said they will vote again. That is 37% of 4 million. If
:02:11. > :02:18.you spread that across the country is not a huge number, in terms of
:02:19. > :02:22.bringing in MPs. Is it a flash in the pan? Well, obviously there will
:02:23. > :02:25.be those who will continue voting for UKIP, but the question is not
:02:26. > :02:29.whether it is a flash in the pan, but whether there is a meal being
:02:30. > :02:35.cooked in the pan, and I don't think there is. They are and `` A1 policy
:02:36. > :02:39.party, but that means it is very clear what they are about. One could
:02:40. > :02:45.argue that the people voting for them know what they are voting for
:02:46. > :02:48.and they will stick with it. It was an interesting strategy coming into
:02:49. > :02:52.these elections, because they just wanted to talk about Europe and
:02:53. > :02:56.immigration and tie them together. No one question them on anything
:02:57. > :02:59.else because they had no policies, because they dismissed their
:03:00. > :03:04.prospectus just before they arrived on the scene. Voters have not made
:03:05. > :03:09.up their minds. 37% of 4 million is about 1 million. The Conservatives
:03:10. > :03:13.got 10 million people voting for them at the last election, so we are
:03:14. > :03:18.talking about 3% or 5% of the general electorate. And there are
:03:19. > :03:23.still more than 30 million people who did not vote at all. The job for
:03:24. > :03:28.many of the parties will be to reach out to those people. And it is not a
:03:29. > :03:31.bad thing anyway if a third of these people say they will vote again for
:03:32. > :03:36.UKIP. UKIP, whether we like it or not, has forced a number of serious
:03:37. > :03:41.issues onto the agenda which need to be addressed between now and the
:03:42. > :03:44.next election. If the threat of the UKIP vote going up, or staying
:03:45. > :03:48.loyal, is held over the main parties, maybe we will see some
:03:49. > :03:57.movement. Staying with the Daily Telegraph, towards the bottom of the
:03:58. > :04:01.page, junk food applications to attract children must be banned.
:04:02. > :04:07.Basically, it is internet advertising. There are strict rules
:04:08. > :04:10.on television advertising. It is another example of how underhand
:04:11. > :04:15.multinationals can be when they want to be. They have been banned from
:04:16. > :04:18.dealing with children's television, and sticking on adverts for fatty
:04:19. > :04:27.soft drinks, but they still managed to get it on various devices. How
:04:28. > :04:31.does it work? If you search on a search engine, it notes that you are
:04:32. > :04:35.interested in that product, probably of that age and that area of the
:04:36. > :04:40.world, and then they latch onto it and start sending you adverts. This
:04:41. > :04:44.was actually a game developed by Coca`Cola and McDonald's. It was
:04:45. > :04:51.that blatant. There was no sneaking in! But it is also about pop`up
:04:52. > :04:56.windows. It is about advertising that can pop up on a child's
:04:57. > :05:01.computer screen. How do you police that? Do you know, I can't get
:05:02. > :05:03.terribly excited about children being targeted by advertisers
:05:04. > :05:08.because at the end of the day they are always targeted within their
:05:09. > :05:12.capability, and ways have been, whether on TV, Saturday morning
:05:13. > :05:17.pictures or whatever. It is down to the parents to deal with it. If your
:05:18. > :05:20.child knows that it is no fizzy drinks, the advert for fizzy drinks
:05:21. > :05:25.is not going to make the child believe they will get it. This is
:05:26. > :05:30.all about the belief that everything is outside our control. But it is
:05:31. > :05:34.pressure for the parents. It is more pressure for the parents, another
:05:35. > :05:38.thing they have to be responsible for. Of course, but, you know what,
:05:39. > :05:44.you have children, you are responsible for them. It's as simple
:05:45. > :05:49.as that. The Independent dedicates its front page to the new privacy
:05:50. > :05:53.laws affecting Google. A rethink of basic freedoms, is how it is
:05:54. > :05:57.described. This is speaking to an Oxford philosopher who is charged
:05:58. > :06:04.with advising Google on the new law. Is this really a revolutionary
:06:05. > :06:07.change for Google? I suppose so. As I am the standard, the date will
:06:08. > :06:12.still hang around but Google will not link to it on a search. But if
:06:13. > :06:18.you went to a newspaper and searched for it, it would. For Google, it
:06:19. > :06:21.means a whole set of bureaucracy they did not want to have to deal
:06:22. > :06:24.with. They always maintained they have nothing to do with the
:06:25. > :06:29.information but just tell people where it is, a library system of
:06:30. > :06:35.sorts. What information are we talking about and where does it go?
:06:36. > :06:39.It will be caught cases, mainly. That is where the concentration is
:06:40. > :06:43.at the moment. At some point it will be footballers having affairs and
:06:44. > :06:47.the usual celebrity nonsense. In the first instance, the complaint is
:06:48. > :06:50.that people whose criminal convictions are long spent are still
:06:51. > :06:54.being made to pay for them and suffer for them, because employers
:06:55. > :06:59.now Google people before they ring them in for interview. Therefore, a
:07:00. > :07:05.misdemeanour in your youth, or a one`off bad moment is held against
:07:06. > :07:09.you for the rest of your life. Interestingly, the case that was
:07:10. > :07:12.referred to, that case, the professor did not think that would
:07:13. > :07:17.actually get removed because he said, it is public knowledge, public
:07:18. > :07:23.information. We can't patrol other people's prejudice, if you like. It
:07:24. > :07:27.could be argued that sometimes it is important for the information to
:07:28. > :07:31.remain out there, rather than being removed. In the past, people would
:07:32. > :07:37.have said, I want to see that, but you could not because there was not
:07:38. > :07:44.the means. The Daily Mail headline is just as frightening as some of
:07:45. > :07:49.the letters it is describing. Absolute nonsense! Taxman's bully
:07:50. > :07:53.boy letters to innocent families. Hundreds of innocent taxpayers, it
:07:54. > :07:57.says, have been sent letters by the Inland Revenue asking them why they
:07:58. > :08:02.are paying not enough tax. Most Inland Revenue letters are quite
:08:03. > :08:08.frightening, aren't they? Paying tax is frightening, but that is life!
:08:09. > :08:12.This story is so ridiculous. It is an alarming letter sent to homes
:08:13. > :08:14.telling them that Taxman has been scrutinising their self`assessment
:08:15. > :08:20.form and their bill is lower than the average for people with a
:08:21. > :08:24.similar amount of income! This takes up one and a half pages! When you
:08:25. > :08:31.read through, it has been sent to 1000 higher rate taxpayers. They are
:08:32. > :08:34.in the top 5%, and they are putting in tax returns which suggest they
:08:35. > :08:38.are not paying as much as they should be. And the Daily Mail gives
:08:39. > :08:44.reasons for this, because apparently if you make a large charity donation
:08:45. > :08:48.you pay less, or if you make a large pension payment. What sort of large
:08:49. > :08:52.are we talking about? Is it outrageous, at a time when we are so
:08:53. > :08:58.angry at large organisations not paying tax, at the fat cats not
:08:59. > :09:01.paying tax, is it outrageous that people who are earning a lot and
:09:02. > :09:06.don't appear to be paying the right amount of tax are just sent a
:09:07. > :09:12.standard letter, asking them to check and please let the Inland
:09:13. > :09:17.Revenue know? I partly agree. The difference here, this is a Daily
:09:18. > :09:20.Mail campaign. They revealed earlier this week that the taxman wants the
:09:21. > :09:24.power to dip into the bank accounts of married couples and their
:09:25. > :09:31.savings. We don't see companies being busted by HMRC and their
:09:32. > :09:37.capital savings being rifled through. So I think there is
:09:38. > :09:41.probably a little bit too strong arm tactics, if these things do come out
:09:42. > :09:46.in the way the Daily Mail portrays them. Surely, there is actually an
:09:47. > :09:52.argument to extend this to companies, rather than to not do it
:09:53. > :10:00.for the little man. I would prefer it was done to companies first,
:10:01. > :10:04.perhaps! The Daily Express, depending on what paper you read and
:10:05. > :10:08.choose to believe, depends on what is happening to house prices.
:10:09. > :10:10.Soaring house prices is good for some but horrific for most. House
:10:11. > :10:13.prices are to some but horrific for most. House
:10:14. > :10:27.prices soar by 12% is their headline. Gosh, what a surprise! The
:10:28. > :10:35.economists are predicting this. The boom will last until 2016,
:10:36. > :10:39.evidently. Didn't we know this? May be house prices will zoom in
:10:40. > :10:44.Liverpool or something. They are zooming in London. Absolutely. As
:10:45. > :10:45.somebody who for the last 15 years has earned houses that are earning
:10:46. > :10:47.more has earned houses that are earning
:10:48. > :10:53.each day than I am, I know all about this. I don't think it's a great
:10:54. > :10:56.thing but nor do I think it is a surprise. I don't quite understand
:10:57. > :11:05.why it is the front page. I would rather have had this football fan's
:11:06. > :11:10.World Cup mission as the main story. We love owning our castle. Let's
:11:11. > :11:17.move on to the financial Times. Tony Blair on the front page. Blair
:11:18. > :11:21.presses for pro`European role to fight the rise of populism. This is
:11:22. > :11:28.off the back of the European elections and the rise of right`wing
:11:29. > :11:33.groups and populism. Tony Blair is stepping in. I suppose there isn't
:11:34. > :11:37.really a figure. Nick Clegg attempted it and failed. There is
:11:38. > :11:41.not a figure selling the EU in Britain and Tony Blair is a good
:11:42. > :11:46.salesman. But if there is going to be a referendum, which is looking
:11:47. > :11:50.likely, somebody needs to do that. People would perhaps learn about the
:11:51. > :11:55.benefits of the EU, rather than the drawbacks and problems. There is
:11:56. > :11:59.never much of that reported. It seems to me that former prime and it
:12:00. > :12:03.is are just the right people to do it. This week, I have heard Tony
:12:04. > :12:08.Blair and John Major give lucid arguments for remaining in the EU,
:12:09. > :12:13.reminding us why we are there, why we can't extricate ourselves and why
:12:14. > :12:16.we would be mad to try. And it is quite nice to hear their measured
:12:17. > :12:23.tones, reminding us why they themselves supported it. It feels
:12:24. > :12:32.very different from, let us say, the S NP, why we should leave the UK.
:12:33. > :12:43.This feels a very positive, probe Laura Liz argument. `` argument in
:12:44. > :12:48.favour of pluralism. I wonder how it goes down in Europe. This is a
:12:49. > :12:52.bigger role than just the UK. We must leave it there but you will be
:12:53. > :13:00.back later with more insight into the papers. Thanks for taking us
:13:01. > :13:04.through. Stay with us on BBC News. Later, a big rise in the number of
:13:05. > :13:29.illegal migrants coming to Europe from North Africa. Next, Sportsday.
:13:30. > :13:33.headlines: Mission accomplished as England comfortably win the World
:13:34. > :13:38.Cup warm up against Baru three ` zero. Arsene Wenger targets more
:13:39. > :13:39.success as he signs a