17/06/2014 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 17/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will bring us. I am


joined by Bonnie Greer and the Deputy political editor of The


Times, Sam Coates. And the Telegraph leads


on what appears to be a reversal of medical advice for the taking of


aspirin to prevent against strokes. The paper reports that


a million people are being told not to take the medication if they have


a particular heart condition. allows Britain's security service to


spy on British people's Facebook The same story is on the front


of the Daily Mirror, which reports that GCHQ argues that


without 'mass surveilance' there wouldn't be 'adequate levels


of intelligence'. are considered legally acceptable


to monitor because the data it spied Cosmetic surgery on the front of the


Daily Mail. According to the paper, Jeremy Hunt has said that the


procedure should no longer be available on the NHS. We are going


to start with the revelations on the front of the metro, revealing how


GCHQ tracks your Internet use. What has happened is that the Home


Office's head of security and anti`terrorist has submitted a 40


page document to say what the UK does when it comes to monitoring


your Twitter, Facebook and Google mail account. It is quite


eye`catching stuff. They have said that they designate all of those


companies, for example my Gmail account is designated a foreign


entity which they feel gives them the right to go through it without a


warrant at any time of their choosing. We know because of the


disclosures from Edward Snowdon we have seen


with a judge. The government says this is necessary in terms of


terrorism. Why this is eye`catching is because a couple of years ago you


may amend that we had a big debate about eight snooper 's bill, as it


was called, that failed in the House of Commons `` a. There were many


safeguards in it against them being able to go through people 's e`mail,


such as the requirement to get a warrant if it was anything more than


the basic data, what the e`mail was called and who it was between. They


have admitted that they can go through anything without a warrant,


which I find fairly surprising. Because of this loophole, many of


the accounts are unregistered overseas, is that the idea? They are


overseas. If you look at twitter, it will tell you the time in Silicon


Valley that your Twitter message went out, that is their time. The


government have found a loophole, and I'm sorry to be cynical, but


GCHQ has been listening to us for years. So this has become a


headline, because we are now aware of the communications, different


sorts. Many people in the House of Commons don't understand social


media, Facebook and Twitter. That's one of the big problems about why


this has come up. This has been going on for years. The revelations


from Edward Snowden left a lot of people underwhelmed. Is this going


to have more traction because it is one of our people saying "we are


sleeping from you and it is a loophole we can do with anybody"?


There are age differences and different people take different


attitudes. It is striking that in America they are having a robust


debate about it. There is a written prostitution in America. We in


Britain don't have a written constitution, there is a body of law


that sits in the House of Commons. When the House of Commons makes a


law, it is dealt with. We don't have that tradition. Americans would jump


on this like crazy. It's an important story but we have to


understand that in this country, this comes up. People won't


understand what this is about because most people will say, they


are listening to us anyway. I agree that it is horrible but how do you


make people understand how terrible it is? You have to trust people that


you can have a discussion about what is and isn't off`limits. The fear is


that you are giving unfettered access to quite a large group of


people. We don't trust the passport agency, how can we be sure that GCHQ


is any better? I would like to know that the people who are watching and


monitoring, the watchers, are doing this well. We are entitled to a


debate, however sniffy politicians like to be about it. No truck with


the argument that we had to have this surveillance, you see what's


happening in Iraqi, many of these people are coming back here, we have


two June in? `` we have to tune in. I'm not coming down on it


definitively, why can't we have a debate and why are we not trusted on


knowing what is going on? Of course I think it's a good idea but it is


not a traditional idea, this is the problem. This is why there is going


to be an issue. Most people will say, to use your argument... I am


playing devils advocate! People are saying, how do we need to know what


is going on. I bumped into a member of the intelligence and Security


committee today, the watchdog who are meant to be watching over this


and I said, do you think that the security services should have


unfettered access without any checks to be able to go through anything


and they looked at me and said "I cannot answer that question until we


adopt a position." It worries me, the quality of the people we picked


put to do this. I agree. The other people on the committee, I'm not


sure they are the toughest we can have and that is it. In America they


have a robust system. The Daily Mirror has the same story. " We are


spying on your Facebook" your point is that the people who are meant to


be overseeing this are much more security minded than civil liberties


minded? In the House of Commons I can only think of three MPs who


aggressively stand up to question this kind of stuff, Tom Watson, a


Liberal Democrat, and David Davies for the Tory party. There are not a


great body of people who want to argue about this and that is quite


interesting. Someone who was not born here, I say that the fail`safe


is the defence of the well`known that is where people go the end of


the day. is the defence of the well`known


that is where people go What Sam is asking for, and it is right, a


change of culture, a cultural shift. A lot of what we're reading about is


based on a piece of legislation, when these issues did not exist, the


Internet was barely formed. A lot of case law has been built on that


rather shaky foundation and there has not been any of the debate you


would want to see. I don't understand the discrepancy but again


we are told that terrorism trumps everything and we shouldn't ask any


questions. It is the defence of the well`known that what has to be


talked about and hopefully this will happen `` the defence of the realm.


We found guilty of football match fixing conspiracy. I know that you


are a big fan... This is a landmark case `` three found guilty. I don't


pay attention to it! People are going to watch this because they are


not watching the football. Here we have a story about football in


trouble. What it is, the Telegraph is effectively patting itself on the


back, some convictions of three people who appear to have been


trying to do match fixing, trying to convince a low`level football player


to throw some matches. It appears that the jury and the judge agreed,


so well done to the Telegraph for exposing this. One detail that is


missing, exactly how they planned to do it. I don't understand how you


fix a football match, but football comes with a hefty smell which I'm


sure people are trying to ignore, talking about this World Cup rather


than the one in Qatar. Interesting that there are problems at every


level. This is in some of the culture, this match fixing, so the


Daily Telegraph has found this out. I question why they do this kind of


thing. I think it is quite legitimate, corrupt football. OK,


right. Aspirin cannot help 1 million heart patients, apparently. The


received wisdom from the NHS was that the few aspirin can help some


people but in some distances it has been a problem. We are in an era


where health stories are going to be really big because the population is


ageing and these stories are coming out. In some instances. It is


apparently said that aspirin, but people with certain heart


conditions, is now a bad thing. How are we supposed to read these sorts


of things, if your doctor is telling you to do it? You don't get the


information from your GP, you read about it and how are you supposed to


deal with it? By close reading of the copy I don't think they are


saying that aspirin is bad for you, they are saying that a new


generation of drugs may be better. I think the broader point is quite


clear, there has been endless and advice about the wonder drug and how


it benefits all people over a certain age. I think there are mixed


messages coming and let's be clear where the story is coming from, new


guidelines from the National Institute for clinical excellence,


the body to decide whether to hand out new drugs to the NHS. I think


people have the right to feel a little bit confused. I think they


are guilty of mixed messages. That was my point. The Daily Mail, Jeremy


Hunt, the Health Secretary, banning cosmetic surgery on the NHS, that's


the message he gave out. And the Daily Express, migrants playing for


NHS. This coming out of a press conference given by Jeremy Hunt, so


the papers have picked up the few leads. Jeremy Hunt appeared before


the press gallery earlier today, there are the lobby lunches when


they have a bite to eat and answer a few questions and give a speech. He


spoke about how migrants are going to pay for the NHS and a possible


ban on cosmetic surgery. We had a bit of an exchange in that question


and answer session as well. In November, Jeremy Hunt gave an on the


record interview to the times when he said


record interview to the times when he that all GPs would have their


salaries published. This closed, because some of them are pretty


high. They few days later we see that the Department of Health have


said that they might not do that `` disclosed. Today I asked him, were


you telling the truth, although your officials, and he answered "both".


And on the McCord interview with The Times, undermined by his answers


today. `` on the record. If you read the story, Jeremy Hunt actually said


it should no longer be available, so it isn't going to be a band, of


course. For the Daily Mail it is their meat and drink. Also, drunks


in accident and emergency don't deserve to be treated, it says. It


is a bunch of speculation that has been turned into headlines. Maybe


Michael Gove's wife is bidding for her husband to become the Health


Secretary. He is leaving her? Oh, right! That is not happening! Thank


you for joining us. At the top of the hour, the Sunni


Muslim and concise is getting closer to Baghdad. Now it is time for the


sports. I'm


John Acres. Brazil draw a blank in game two, as Mexico keeper


Ochoa keeps them at bay in a 0`0


Download Subtitles