17/06/2014 The Papers

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