:00:00. > :00:00.2020. Coming up, Rockland, a tale of romance in New York, and the other
:00:00. > :00:18.top releases in The Film Review. -- Brooklyn.
:00:19. > :00:31.Welcome to the Papers. Good evening to both of our guest is. Let's have
:00:32. > :00:35.a look at some of the front pages. The Daily Star leading with the
:00:36. > :00:40.downing of the Russian plane in Egypt last week. It says that spy
:00:41. > :00:46.chiefs here suspect British jihadi is made the jet on. The Sunday
:00:47. > :00:49.express says that extremists with British accents were overheard
:00:50. > :00:55.celebrating the death of the passengers and crew. Aviation
:00:56. > :00:59.experts say that tragedy will cause a fundamental overhaul of airport
:01:00. > :01:03.security across the globe. The story also makes the front page of the
:01:04. > :01:07.Sunday Telegraph. Its leaders are planned by the EU to pay African
:01:08. > :01:11.countries to take back asylum seekers. The Mail on Sunday claims
:01:12. > :01:17.that James Hewitt, Princess Diana's former lover, has offered some of
:01:18. > :01:20.her private letters for sale. And, the Sunday Times reports a
:01:21. > :01:21.high-profile footballers face losing millions of pounds after making poor
:01:22. > :01:33.investment choices. So, the lack of developments on this
:01:34. > :01:41.aircraft crash seems to lead everything. We have here on the
:01:42. > :01:48.Independent, it is 50-50 that CCTV was not being watched. They have
:01:49. > :01:53.spoken to an official at Sharm el-Sheikh airport, who spoke on the
:01:54. > :01:58.condition of anonymity, and they said that there is closed circuit
:01:59. > :02:02.TV, which is fair is much to spy on the employees as it is to spy on the
:02:03. > :02:08.passengers, but that it was routinely not being watched. So,
:02:09. > :02:11.there was a camera that was focused on the baggage handlers to make sure
:02:12. > :02:16.that people were not putting stuff into luggage that shouldn't be there
:02:17. > :02:22.for taking stuff out. Members of staff doing this. But that camera,
:02:23. > :02:30.the feed was regularly not being watched. A 50-50 chance of it not
:02:31. > :02:34.being watched. On the inside pages, CCTV station was routinely abandoned
:02:35. > :02:39.at Sharm el-Sheikh airport, says the headline. This is focusing not just
:02:40. > :02:44.on who may have got on the plane, who had access to it. Yes, there may
:02:45. > :02:48.not have been a suicide bomber taking the bomb on the plane with
:02:49. > :02:54.them, but it may have been somebody paid for somebody sympathetic to the
:02:55. > :03:00.jihad who was working at the airport and may have slipped the bomb into
:03:01. > :03:05.an item of baggage. Where is the baby getting this information from?
:03:06. > :03:12.It is speaking anonymously to people at Sharm el-Sheikh, people working
:03:13. > :03:17.there. They are also reporting that a lot of the CCTV cameras are
:03:18. > :03:25.broken, so not working to begin with. They have identified various
:03:26. > :03:34.slips in security at that airport in the days leading up to the plane
:03:35. > :03:39.coming down. They are also referring to... Which is what a lot of them
:03:40. > :03:45.are talking about, the jihadi chatter that is being picked up by
:03:46. > :03:56.various intelligence agencies. Let's move on to the Sunday Express, whose
:03:57. > :04:02.front pages dominated by that. This is not necessarily people involved,
:04:03. > :04:07.is it? Will people reacting? We don't know, it is a very loosely
:04:08. > :04:16.held together story. The Sunday Express is basically saying that
:04:17. > :04:21.jihadis were overheard in Egypt celebrating the plane coming down,
:04:22. > :04:27.but why wouldn't they be? That is what jihadi is going to do. To my
:04:28. > :04:36.mind, given what the story says inside this is quite an inflammatory
:04:37. > :04:38.headline, because what it says is that GCHQ could overhear jihadis in
:04:39. > :04:47.Egypt celebrating the plane going down, and some of those celebrating
:04:48. > :04:54.had British accents. Inside it says British link to jet bomb... Yes, and
:04:55. > :04:57.then it says there has also been some internet traffic suggesting
:04:58. > :05:06.that there was British involvement in the attack. This is from a GCHQ
:05:07. > :05:15.source. That, clearly, if it is true, it would be a smoking gun or
:05:16. > :05:19.closer to it. The quote from a GCHQ source, an anonymous source, goes on
:05:20. > :05:23.to talk about the British jihadis in Egypt fighting with Islamic State,
:05:24. > :05:29.who were trained in Syria and who have an electronics background.
:05:30. > :05:36.Speculative then? Completely speculative, and the worry is that
:05:37. > :05:41.this is all coming just as the UK is discussing whether to give more
:05:42. > :05:46.surveillance powers to British intelligence. And here they are
:05:47. > :05:50.saying, look! Look what we can hear with all our wonderful intercept
:05:51. > :05:55.capacity. What they are hearing is not very much and nothing that is
:05:56. > :06:00.very conclusive that all. At least not what they are telling us. I was
:06:01. > :06:06.going to say, that is what the papers have managed to pick up.
:06:07. > :06:12.Obviously they are mandatory and chatter -- monitoring chatter, which
:06:13. > :06:18.isn't that clever if you are jihadis and if you are involved in a terror
:06:19. > :06:22.attack. But if you are jihadis you will celebrate this. If he didn't
:06:23. > :06:26.celebrate it you would have to review what you are doing as a
:06:27. > :06:29.jihadi. The fact that they are celebrating it doesn't mean
:06:30. > :06:35.anything, it is the implication that they are linked in any way. It is
:06:36. > :06:38.internet chatter suggesting there was British involvement in the
:06:39. > :06:43.attack, that is different from chatter celebrating it. And
:06:44. > :06:45.different again from what it appears the Americans are saying, which is
:06:46. > :06:55.on the front page of the Telegraph, which is that people at ISIS HQ were
:06:56. > :07:02.also celebrating. There are so many different streams, lots of
:07:03. > :07:10.celebrating going on in the Middle East, from bad people, apparently.
:07:11. > :07:15.Certain parts of the Middle East. Obviously... Sometimes you get
:07:16. > :07:20.multiple groups claiming responsibility for one attack. A lot
:07:21. > :07:24.of Middle East experts say that Islamic State is not really in
:07:25. > :07:29.Egypt, it is groups affiliated with or supporters of all who have
:07:30. > :07:34.claimed a partnership with Islamic State who could be responsible for
:07:35. > :07:38.this if it is a bomb. If it is, that will be the first time ferrite
:07:39. > :07:46.Islamic State affiliates in the Egyptian Sinai, but if they were
:07:47. > :07:49.behind it and it would be the first time they have internationalised
:07:50. > :07:54.their attacks, because in the past year their attacks have mainly been
:07:55. > :08:02.on Egyptian security and Egyptian... There have been attacks
:08:03. > :08:05.in the north of Sinai, so nowhere near Sharm el-Sheikh. This would be
:08:06. > :08:10.the first time they have got involved in something International.
:08:11. > :08:19.With all of this, whether it is true or speculative, a lot of newspapers
:08:20. > :08:22.are also reporting on scrutiny of airports not only in Sharma fake but
:08:23. > :08:26.elsewhere in the world as well. There are some other news stories in
:08:27. > :08:32.the papers tomorrow, shall we move on to the Telegraph and an attack on
:08:33. > :08:39.a secret EU deal for migrants that is actually no longer a secret? It
:08:40. > :08:44.has been leaked to the Sunday Telegraph. They are saying that the
:08:45. > :08:50.EU has come up with a proposal to pay African countries to take back a
:08:51. > :08:51.lot of the migrants who have come over to the EU during the course of
:08:52. > :09:07.recent months. The quid African countries, who have skills
:09:08. > :09:15.and experience which the EU economy needs. People like doctors,
:09:16. > :09:18.entrepreneurs. Whoever it is in the EU who is coming up with us, I guess
:09:19. > :09:24.that is how they would spend it. That they are trying to ensure that
:09:25. > :09:35.the migration that does happen to the EU is migration that is
:09:36. > :09:41.economically beneficial. The way the Telegraph is painting it is that
:09:42. > :09:45.they are actually... Week, the EU taxpayer, are
:09:46. > :09:49.effectively bribing African countries to take back the migrants
:09:50. > :09:52.we don't want. To take back asylum seekers that we don't want, which is
:09:53. > :09:59.kind of not There maybe some human rights groups
:10:00. > :10:00.who have something to about that. Under international law you
:10:01. > :10:09.being persecuted. Even if you are paying for it, yes! There is no easy
:10:10. > :10:16.answer to the migrant crisis. is no easy answer but I don't think
:10:17. > :10:23.this is the answer. No one claiming that there is an easy
:10:24. > :10:23.answer, but this... I think this is really insidious, the idea of
:10:24. > :10:38.ranking migrants entire... Asylum inside, that is
:10:39. > :10:45.what -- asylum aside, that is how our entire immigration system
:10:46. > :10:52.works. Who don't we want? People who clean our streets or people who run
:10:53. > :10:56.our NHS? It wasn't that long ago that Theresa May said that we had an
:10:57. > :11:00.asylum seeker system we are very proud of, but this doesn't sound
:11:01. > :11:08.like something that will go down very well with many people. Clearly
:11:09. > :11:12.if the quid pro quo for that is talking about economic migrants,
:11:13. > :11:16.clearly if you are Doctor Who is being encouraged to come to the from
:11:17. > :11:22.Africa, you are by definition not an asylum seeker. So there is some
:11:23. > :11:25.muddy nest between which two categories of migration we are
:11:26. > :11:39.talking about. All of that needs investigation on a case-by-case
:11:40. > :11:48.basis. -- if you are are Doctor who is being encouraged. And here we
:11:49. > :11:53.have a letter to Donald Tusk at a public letter by David Cameron that
:11:54. > :11:58.will be released. This will be saying if you don't do this list of
:11:59. > :12:03.things we will quit the EU. That doesn't seem like a great way to
:12:04. > :12:06.start the negotiation, with an ultimatum. You risk those 27
:12:07. > :12:12.European heads of state going, all right, fine, leave. It just seems a
:12:13. > :12:18.bit of a weird way to enter this conversation. Are you saying this is
:12:19. > :12:25.more for rust and it is for them? It is an open letter, so there is the
:12:26. > :12:29.answer. I think it is interesting if Cameron is making a threat about an
:12:30. > :12:32.exit from the EU, and one that he would support and campaign for in
:12:33. > :12:40.the British referendum, which is coming up next year, then that may
:12:41. > :12:45.be a shift from what we have seen before from this government, who
:12:46. > :12:49.have been saying, we hope to get the deal that we can champion to the
:12:50. > :12:53.British people for staying in the EU. You think it gives a mixed and
:12:54. > :12:59.confusing message to the public from David Cameron, saying I want to stay
:13:00. > :13:05.in but I'm willing to pull out, we have a referendum, you decide. It is
:13:06. > :13:09.a spin doctor's nightmare. It always has been, there has within a
:13:10. > :13:13.confused approach and it is because the party is completely about it.
:13:14. > :13:17.You can hear the music, we have run out of time. They did before taking
:13:18. > :13:19.us through the papers. Up next, The Film Review.